Patna High Court
Rajeev Kumar PatelversusAdhula Devi
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The appeal is not maintainable before the High Court because the suit value of Rs.3 lakhs is below the Rs.10 lakh threshold prescribed by the amended Section 21, and jurisdiction lies with the District Judge.
Summary
The appellants, Rajeev Kumar Patel and Sanjeev Kumar, appealed a decree of a civil suit valued at Rs.3 lakhs before the Patna High Court. The learned counsel argued that an amendment to Section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Court Act, 1887 now limits appeals of suits valued below Rs.10 lakhs to the jurisdiction of the District Judge, rendering the High Court appeal non‑maintainable. The Court examined the amended provision and the pecuniary jurisdiction it creates. It held that the appeal could not be entertained by the High Court because the suit’s value fell below the Rs.10 lakh threshold. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not maintainable, with liberty granted to the appellants to file the appeal before the appropriate District Judge within four weeks, together with a limitation petition. The District Judge will consider the filing and pendency of the appeal when deciding the limitation issue.
Issues considered
- Whether the appeal filed before the Patna High Court is maintainable given the amendment to Section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Court Act, 1887 setting a Rs.10 lakh pecuniary threshold.
Subjects
- pecuniary jurisdiction
- appeal maintainability
- civil procedure
- limitation
- district judge jurisdiction
- statutory amendment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
FIRST APPEAL No.94 of 2025
======================================================
1. Rajeev Kumar Patel Son of Bhola Mahto, Resident of Mohalla Dawan Tola
P.S. and District- Khagaria.
2. Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Patel, Son of Bhola Mahto, Resident of Mohalla
Dawan Tola P.S. and District- Khagaria.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Adhula Devi Wife of Late Hardeo Prasad @ Har Gauri Prasad, Resident of
village dawan Tola, P.S. and District Khagaria.
2. Kalpana Devi, Daughter of Late Hardeo Prasad @ Har Gauri Prasad,
Resident of village dawan Tola, P.S. and District Khagaria.
3. Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Hardeo Prasad @ Har Gauri Prasad, Resident of
village dawan Tola, P.S. and District Khagaria.
4. Sujit Kumar, Son of Late Hardeo Prasad @ Har Gauri Prasad, Resident of
village Dawan Tola, P.S. and District Khagaria.
5. Mahadeo Prasad, Son of Late Henu Mahto, Resident of Mohalla Dawan
Tola, P.S. and District Khagaria.
6. Prabhat Kumar, Son of Mahadeo Mahto, Resident of Mohalla Dawan Tola,
P.S. and District Khagaria.
7. Navin Kumar, Son of Mahadeo Mahto, Resident of Mohalla Dawan Tola,
P.S. and District Khagaria.
8. Most. Ranjeeta Devi @ Ranjeeta Kumari, Wife of Late Ranjit Patel @
Ranjeet Kumar Patel, Resident of Mohalla Dawan Tola, P.S. and District
Khagaria.
9. Arpit Raj @ Ritik Raj, Son of Late Ranjeet Patel @ Ranjeet Kumar Patel,
Resident of Mohalla Dawan Tola, P.S. and District Khagaria.
10. Ritesh Raj, Son of Late Ranjeet Patel @ Late Ranjeet Kumar Patel, Resident
of Mohalla Dawan Tola, P.S. and District Khagaria.
11. Ritika Rani, Daughter of Late Ranjeet Patel @ Late Raneet Kumar Patel,
Resident of Mohalla Dawan Tola, P.S. and District Khagaria.
12. Usha Devi @ Usha Kumari, Wife of Late Sudhir Mandal, Daughter of Late
Patna High Court FA No.94 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
Bhola Mahto @ Late Bhola Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla Dawan Tola,
P.S. and District Khagaria.
13. Nisha Patel @ Nisha Devi @ Nisha Kumari, Wife of Dashrath Prasad
Ranjan @ Dashrath Mahto, Resident of Mohalla Dawan Tola, P.S. and
District Khagaria.
14. Sharmila Devi, Wife of Pramod Singh, Daughter of Late Bhola Mahto @
Late Bhola Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla Dawan Tola, P.S. and District
Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Advocate
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Pathak, Advocate
Mr. Sandip Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused
the record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as
per amendment in Section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam
Civil Court Act, 1887; appeal from a decree or order where the
value of the original suit is less than Rs. 10 lakhs, the appeal
would lie before learned District Judge and since the suit from
which the instant appeal has been preferred is valued at Rs. 3
lakhs, the present appeal is not maintainable.
3. In view of the above, appeal is disposed of as not
maintainable in view of the pecuniary jurisdiction on the
amendment as stated above, with liberty to the appellants to
Patna High Court FA No.94 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
move before the learned District Judge concerned within a
period of four weeks from today along with the limitation
petition.
4. The learned District Judge will take into
consideration the filing and pendency of the appeal in this Court
in deciding the limitation petition in accordance with law.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U
Checking your session…