In a suit for injunction, the value of the relief sought is to be notionally valued for the purpose of paying court fees, while the value of the suit property determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.

MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the lower court on unnumbered plaint on 20-09-1995.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs, who presented (he plaint, which is un-numbered, before the lower Court under Order 7, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure read with Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a decree and judgment restraining the defendant there in and his men in any way from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property, that is to say, the suit was filed seeking for a permanent injunction against the defendant. The petitioner estimated the value of the properties for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction at Rs. 74,000/- and presented the suit before the District Munsif Court, Piler. For the purpose of relief of injunction, the petitioners tentatively estimated the value of the relief at Rs. 2000- and paid a Court fee of Rs. 186/- as provided under Section 26 (c) of the A. P. Court Fees Act, 1956. The lower Court returned the plaint to the petitioners directing them to present before the appropriate Court as the value of the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction is more than Rs. 50,000/- by order dated 20-9-1995 against which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

( 3 ) THIS Court while ordering notice before admission in this matter, gave notice to the learned Government Pleader for Revenue to assist the Court in this behalf, pursuant to which the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appeared before this Court and assisted in this matter.

( 4 ) SRI. NIRANJAN Reddy learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the relief sought in the suit is for the permanent injunction against the defendant, and therefore, for the purpose of paying the Court Fee the relief sought was notionally valued at Rs. 2,000/- and paid the Court Fee of rs. 186/- as provided under Section 26 (C) of the A. P. Court Fees Act, 1956. It is contended that the lower Court ought not to have rejected to receive the suit which was presented. In support of his contention, Sri. Niranjan Reddy has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of K. Subramanya Naidu vs. Adilakshmiammal.

( 5 ) ON the contrary, the learned Government Pleader, who represented the revenue Department, has stated that the lower Court is justified in directing the petitioner to present the suit in an appropriate forum i. e. , the Subordinate court As per the provisions of Section 16 (2) of the A. P. Civil Courts Act, 1972, suit valued for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction if exceeds more than rs. . 50,000/-,it is only the Subordinate Courts within whose jurisdiction the suit properties fall, are competent to entertain the suit, and therefore, it is contended that the lower Court has rightly directed the petitioners to present the suit in the competent Subordinate Court.

( 6 ) THE short point now therefore arises before this Court for consideration is whether the order of the lower Court directing the petitioners to present the suit in the appropriate Subordinate Court is proper. Admittedly, the suit is filed for a permanent injunction seeking restraining the defendant therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties to an extent of Ac. 3 -13 cents situated in Sy. No. 1104/al in maddipatlavaripalli village, Piler Sub-Division, Chittoor District. The market value of these suit properties have been estimated by the petitioner at rs. 74,000/- So far as the purpose of payment of Court Fee is concerned, the petitioner have notionally valued the relief at Rs. 2,000/- and an amount of rs. l86/-has also been paid towards Court Fee as provided under Section 26 (c) of the A. P, Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

( 7 ) IT is to be remembered that in cases of this nature, a distinction has to be made as to the value of the suit schedule properties for the purpose of presenti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document