B. Amit Sthalekar, J. - (1.) Heard Shri A.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajendra Babu Gaur, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner, in the writ petition, prays that the order of the District Judge, Hathras dated 15.12.2018 rejecting the petitioners' transfer application No. 309 of 2018 (Dinesh Kumar and others vs. Durvijay Singh) may be set aside.
(3.) Contention of the petitioners is that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) has no pecuniary jurisdiction' to hear the matter since after the amendment in the C.P.C. all pecuniary jurisdiciton upto Rs. 5,00,000/- is vested in the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The District Judge, however, in appeal has held: (i) that there was a direction of the High Court to decide the suit expeditiously, and therefore, transferring the matter to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) would unnecessarily delay the hearing of the suit, (ii) The Court below has held that an objection to territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction does not go to the root of the matter, and therefore, would not render the final decree as void. (3) Reference has been made to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the Case of M/s Pankaj Hotel and another vs. Bal Mukund (Deceased) through his legal representatives and others, 2018 126 AllLR 334, wherein has held:- "The Code of Civil Procedure has made a distinction between law of inherent jurisdiction and objection to territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction. Whereas an inherent lack of jurisdiction may make the decree passed by that court to be one without jurisdiction or void in law, a decree passed by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction does not automatically become void.";