Whether CJJD and CJSD can try suit under maharashtra rent control Act as regular suit?

 The conclusions of the learned Principal District Judge that the
Civil Judge (Junior Division) could not have tried the civil suit as he was not
invested with powers of the Small Causes Court and he could not have
entertained   and   tried   the   civil   suit   valued   above   Rs.6,000/­,   are   also
unsustainable. The learned Principal District Judge has committed an error in

recording that the provisions of Section 33(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1999 are attracted. In the present case, the provisions of Section
33(1)(c)   of   the   Maharashtra   Rent   Control   Act,   1999   will   be   applicable.
Section 33(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 lays  down that
if the valuation of the civil suit is upto the limit of the jurisdiction of the Civil
Judge (Junior Division), then he can entertain and decide the civil suit.  The
Division   Bench   of   this   Court,   in   the   judgment   given   in   the   case   of
Radheshyam Zumbarlal Chandak  (supra) has clarified that if the Court of
Small Causes is not established at a particular place or the High Court,
exercising powers under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Courts Act,
has not invested any Civil Judge with the jurisdiction of the Court of Small
Causes for the trial of civil suits cognizable by such Courts, then the  ordinary
original civil jurisdiction conferred upon the Civil Judge (Junior Division) or
the Civil Judge (Senior Division) will be available to the parties and the civil
suit will have to be tried by the Civil Judge as Regular Civil Suit depending
upon the pecuniary limits of the Civil Judge as provided by Section 24 of the
Maharashtra   Civil   Courts   Act.     The   conclusions   of   the   learned   Principal
District Judge are unsustainable.  
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3305  OF 2015

Mangesh Vasant Ajmire, V  Pradeepkumar Bansilal Mohta, 

    CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
     DATED   : JULY 05, 2016.
Citation: 2016 (5) MHLJ 476 Bom

Print Page

When establishment of CJSD and ADJ court at taluqa place should be considered?

We hold that availability of requisite number of cases
cannot be the sole criteria for establishing the Courts
of   ADJ   and   CJSD   at   Taluka   places.   Various   other
factors are required to be considered with a view to
ensure that there is no denial of easy accessibility to
justice. While taking a decision whether a new Court
should be established, the   number of cases which
may be available to the newly established Court   is
not the only consideration. The proposal to establish
Courts of ADJ and CJSD at Taluka places cannot be
rejected only on the ground that number of cases as
per the quota fixed by the High Court will not be
available without considering all the relevant factors,
some of which are stated in paragraph 14  above only
by way of illustration. The issue of easy access to the
justice should be one of the main considerations;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5098 OF 2012
Partur Advocate Bar Association,

Versus
 State of Maharashtra,

CORAM  :  A.S. OKA &  C.V. BHADANG, JJ.

THE DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED :  5th May 2016
Citation:AIR 2016 Bom196

Print Page

Whether civil judge junior division has jurisdiction to decide suit pertaining to judgment of C.J.S.D.?

 The applicant and the respondent wrongly assumed that because 

the present Suit pertains to a judgment of C.J.S.D. It should not be tried by a a C.J.S.D. This impression is obviously incorrect in view of S.15 of CPC. The C.J.J.D. is competent to try this suit because the C.J.J.D. is not examining the correctness and validity of the 

judgment and decree in the previous suit. The question between the parties is likely to be whether the defendants made false 

representation to the plaintiffs in respect of the ownership of the land on which the suit structure is standing and from which the plaintiffs are sought to be evicted pursuant to the judgment and decree Sp.Civil Suit No.5/76. Such question can certainly be decided by the 

C.J.J.D. The present suit could not have been valued on the basis of the license fee or the market value of the property but it should be as per S.6 (1) of Bombay Court Fees. So the suit should be tried by the Court of C.J.J.D.

Bombay High Court

C vs H on 18 July, 2013

Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande

1. Smt Rajivas Vasu Shetty
 V/s.
1. Insanali Nasibdar
Citation;2013(5)ALL M R641

Print Page