Fateh Singh vs Smt Prem Kumari And Ors on 14 September, 2009
4. Shri G. K. Garg, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that in view of Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure no objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction of the court can be allowed to be raised by the defendant at this belated stage particularly when entire evidence has been recorded and no such objection was raised by the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that according to sub-section (2) of Section 21 of CPC defendant was required to not only take such objection in the Court of first instance but also at the earliest possible opportunity, but he has not raised such objection for almost 14 years. Learned counsel in support of this argument relied on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Mani Vs. Kishan Lal & Anr. : RLR 1996 (2), 145 and Single Bench judgment in Laxman Singh & Anr. Vs. LIC of India : RLR, 1982, 290 and in Maimuna Begum Vs. Lakshman Rabidas : AIR 1992 Gauhati, 91. Learned counsel expressed the apprehension that if now at this stage the suit is transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge (Senior division) the petitioner might object to correctness or validity of the evidence recorded and proceedings so far transacted in the Court of Additional District Judge. It is contended that Court of Additional District Judge being a higher court, no prejudice can be taken to have been caused to the defendant-petitioner.