if plaint is returned on grounds that court has no pecuniary jurisdiction it has to be filed in senior division court having jurisdiction then suit would continue from the argument stage only

In the case of Joginder Tuli v. S.L. Bhatia (Supra), the Supreme Court approved the order of the High Court where it had directed the subordinate court to proceed with the suit from the stage at which the suit stood transferred because the trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit and had directed return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court

present arguments case can be continued in senior division

2) court has to pass orders for return of plaint

if a court does not have the pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction over a matter then such court does not have any jurisdiction at all and it can at any stage of the suit, either itself or on any application made by any party to the suit, return the plaint to the Plaintiff for filing it before the proper court

so unfortunately you will have to present your plaint again in the proper court

you can make an application to that court to adopt all the proceedings that ensued before the junior judge as if those proceedings happened before the senior judge. If the defendants do not object to your application, then the senior judge can proceed on your case from the stage at which it was pending before the junior judge

Yes in your case present arguments stage be continued in the senior division court.

For this you have to pursue an application through your advocate for the continuation

of present stage.

kindly follow this Citation

B.Nemi Chand Jain

vs

G.Ravindran

Sir the court can pass such order to transfer the case to the senior division court as the court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction the case shall continue from the argument stage only as the pleadings are complete. An application for the same can be moved to court for transferring the case ,

Further you can file an application for the early disposal of case in ground that you are senior citizen

Yes the present stage can be continued before the senior civil judge as the territorial jurisdiction is correct on the pecuniary jurisdiction was not properly calculated.

Dear Sir,

You have to consult a senior counsel in local area since it needs experienced arguments. As per order 14 Rule 2 CPc court may suo motto raise such issues but not at this fag end trial of the case. It cannot be thrown out at this stage. Ignorance of court itself is a hurdle for itself to pass such flimsy orders. The trial court has to answer all the issues including the issue pertaining to jurisdiction at this point of time that is when case is for final arguments.

====================================

ORDER XIV SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AND DETERMINATION OF SUIT ON ISSUES OF LAW OR ON ISSUES AGREED UPON

Rule 1: Framing of issues

(1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other.

(2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.

(3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue.

(4) Issues are of two kinds:

(a) issues of fact,

(b) issues of law.

(5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and 1 [after examination under rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders], ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend.

(6) Nothing in this rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence.

Rule 2: Court to pronounce judgment on all issues

(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues.

(2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to

(a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or

(b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force,

and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.

The law is common for all the citizens.

If the court has dismissed the case for pecuniary jurisdiction then you may not get any relief even in an appeal against it.

You will be wasting more time on appeal without getting any relief .

Instead you may better file a fresh partition suit in the appropriate court seeking partition of the entire properties that were left behind by your father upon his intestate death.

It is not understood that why did you opt for partial partition?

Your information from one post to another is misleading, hence you may not get proper opinion or suggestion if you mislead the advocates with incorrect informations.

Now you say that the court wants you to withdraw the suit whereas in yor previous post you mentioned that the court rejected the suit for pecuniary jurisdiction.

In my opinion you may allow the case to run and make your arguments in the current suit without withdrawing the same under pressure.

Let the court dismiss the suit for the reasons stated therein after which you may decide further course of legal action on it.