B. PRAKASH RAO, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India, on a reference made by the learned Single Judge, the question which has been referred to, for decision on the importance of the question involved, is, whether Section 16 of the A. P. Civil courts Act, 1972 is relevant to be taken into consideration or whether the relevant provisions governing the A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 to be taken into consideration for the purpose of entertaining a suit?

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts, as referred to by the learned Single Judge, are that the petitioner, who is the defendant, sought to assail the orders passed in an Interlocutory application in LA. No. 691 of 2007 in O. S. No. 142 of 2007, dated 8. 5. 2007, on the file of the Ill-Additional Junior Civil Judge, nellore, dismissing the application filed by him purported to be under Order VII rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a direction to return the plaint in the said suit on the ground that the pecuniary jurisdiction as mentioned in the plaint shows rs. 1,72,000/- and therefore, the Court of ill-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore has no jurisdiction to entertain the same having regard to the provision under Section 16 of the A. P. Civil Courts Act, 1972. Further it was contended that the valuation as taken for payment of Court fee under Section 24 (b)of the A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation act, 1956 has no concern with the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.

( 3 ) THE reference order refers to the decisions, placed reliance on, in Gunna venkataratnam v. Gunna Kesava Rao, 1991 (1) APLJ 485, and Syed Saleema bee v. Smt. Syed Noor Jahan and another, 2006 (2) ALD 721 = 2006 (2) ALT 637. Taking note of the submissions on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff in pressing into service the provisions of Section 24 of the A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, on the basis of which, half of the market value was taken, which itself would constitute as a base to determine the jurisdiction of the Court, reference was made to the decision in Workman of Pan american World Airways, K. Ramachandran v. Management of M/s. Pan American world Airways and another, AIR 1987 sc 2084.

( 4 ) ON the aforesaid backdrop, the learned Single Judge felt that the question that arises is of importance and therefore, requires to be considered for an appropriate authoritative decision. Hence, the reference.

( 5 ) AFTER hearing the Counsel appearing on either side in this revision, sri Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Velum Ravi, on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, this Court appointed Sri M. V. Durga Prasad, the learned Counsel as amicus curias and also the learned Government Pleader for arbitration. Further on Court notice, this court has also taken the assistance of Sri vilas V. Afzulpurkar, the learned Senior counsel.

( 6 ) AFTER considering the submissions made across the Bar by the aforesaid counsel and also on perusal of the material, it is brought to our notice that the question, as referred to and as mentioned above, is no longer res integra. In fact, a Full Bench of this Court in Kalla Yadagiri and others v. Kotha Bal Reddy, 1999 (1) ALD 222 (FB), has already considered the very question from all perspectives, on appraisal of the provisions of both the Legislatures viz. , A. P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 and A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 and held that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts, it is the valuation of the relief sought by the plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court, and further observed that the proper method is to value the Court fees and adopt that value for the purpose of jurisdiction. Therefore, from the detailed discussion as made therein, by referring to both the provisions, as mentioned by the learned single Judge in this reference, it has been categorically held, "subject-matter is not the same thing as the property, but is th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document