Karnataka HC Disposes Of Chincholi Court Jurisdiction Challenge As Infructuous After Civil Courts Act Amendment

The petitioners, defendants in O.S. No. 9/2013 before the Principal Civil Judge, Chincholi, disputed the Trial Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction.

The Trial Court framed and decided an additional issue on jurisdiction after receiving evidence, and by order dated 7 February 2022 held that it had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking its quashing and return of the plaint for presentation to a court with pecuniary jurisdiction.

At the hearing, petitioners’ counsel submitted that a subsequent amendment to the Civil Courts Act empowered the Trial Court to try the suit and that the petition had therefore become infructuous.

The petition was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution, and the underlying dispute concerned pecuniary jurisdiction under the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

The Court did not interpret or apply the provisions of that Act, determine the correctness of the Trial Court’s jurisdictional ruling, or rely on any cited precedent.

The Court recorded petitioners’ counsel’s submission that the amendment to the Civil Courts Act now empowered the Trial Court to try the suit, making a decision on the merits of the challenged order unnecessary.

In light of that submission, the Court did not assess the valuation evidence or decide whether the Trial Court had pecuniary jurisdiction under the applicable court-fees legislation.

It did not quash the Trial Court’s order or grant the requested relief of returning the plaint, and made no determination on the merits of the pecuniary-jurisdiction issue.