Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.69 seconds)Smt. Siya Dulari vs Awadh Naresh on 11 March, 2024
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has referred to the preamble to the Act, 2008 as well as Section 13 to contend that given the scope of the Act and the suit in question being within the pecuniary limit prescribed for Gram Nyayalayas by the High Court, the Gram Nyayalaya will have jurisdiction in the matter. It is stated that the order of the District Judge, Chitrakoot dated 8.9.2020 is on record which directed that civil cases and criminal matters pertaining to Manikpur and certain other tehsils pending in the District Court, be transferred to the Gram Nyayalaya concerned and therefore, the Gram Nyayalaya would have jurisdiction. It is further stated that under Section 34 of the Act, 2008, if a remedy of appeal would not lie due to valuation, then a remedy of revision would anyway be available. Learned counsel has referred to a Judgement of the High Court of Bombay passed in the Matter of Shobha Janardhan Masram Vs. Ganpat Gulabrao Thakre2, particularly, paragraph nos. 12 and 13 thereof to contend that since no objection was raised before the Gram Nyayalaya with regard to the jurisdiction and neither was any appeal filed before the appellate court against the order of the Gram Nyayalaya affirming its jurisdiction, this petition ought to be rejected.
Smt. Siya Dulari vs Awadh Naresh on 11 March, 2024
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has referred to the preamble to the Act, 2008 as well as Section 13 to contend that given the scope of the Act and the suit in question being within the pecuniary limit prescribed for Gram Nyayalayas by the High Court, the Gram Nyayalaya will have jurisdiction in the matter. It is stated that the order of the District Judge, Chitrakoot dated 8.9.2020 is on record which directed that civil cases and criminal matters pertaining to Manikpur and certain other tehsils pending in the District Court, be transferred to the Gram Nyayalaya concerned and therefore, the Gram Nyayalaya would have jurisdiction. It is further stated that under Section 34 of the Act, 2008, if a remedy of appeal would not lie due to valuation, then a remedy of revision would anyway be available. Learned counsel has referred to a Judgement of the High Court of Bombay passed in the Matter of Shobha Janardhan Masram Vs. Ganpat Gulabrao Thakre2, particularly, paragraph nos. 12 and 13 thereof to contend that since no objection was raised before the Gram Nyayalaya with regard to the jurisdiction and neither was any appeal filed before the appellate court against the order of the Gram Nyayalaya affirming its jurisdiction, this petition ought to be rejected.
1