Amended law grants appellate courts unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, requiring reconsideration of appeals dismissed on that ground.

The appellants, two plaintiffs in a suit for partition and separate possession of shares in the suit properties, challenged the dismissal of their suit by the Trial Court.

Their first appeal was dismissed by the III Additional District Judge, Shivamogga, as not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

The First Appellate Court relied on its valuation of the plaintiffs’ shares at approximately ₹14.28 lakh and the then-applicable ₹10 lakh threshold under Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964.

In the second appeal, the High Court noted that the First Appellate Court had not considered the appeal on its merits.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court’s judgment dismissing the appeal for want of pecuniary jurisdiction could stand in light of the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 and the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023, as considered in Smt. Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka and upheld by the Supreme Court.

2. Whether the matter should be remitted to the First Appellate Court for a decision on the merits.

Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, as quoted by the First Appellate Court, allocated appeals from Senior Civil Judges by reference to a ₹10 lakh pecuniary threshold.

The High Court relied on the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 and the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023, together with Smt. Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 17588/2024, and the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 41602/206, for the position that the First Appellate Court had unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain appeals irrespective of pecuniary value.

The appeal before the High Court was brought under Section 100 CPC read with Order 42 Rule 1 CPC.

The First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal solely because it considered the valuation of the plaintiffs’ shares to exceed its pecuniary limit; it had not determined the appeal on its merits.

In light of the 2023 amendments and the authorities cited, the High Court held that the First Appellate Court presently had unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction.

Its dismissal on the former jurisdictional ground therefore could not stand, and the appeal required fresh consideration on the merits.

All rival contentions were left open, and the High Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the dispute.