SRINIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision under Section 115 CPC the petitioner (defendant no. 1) calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 19. 08. 2002 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) at udupi in M. A. No. 23/2001 reversing the order dated 9. 7. 2001 in o. S. No. 248/92 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Udupi, produced as Annexure A to the petition.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff initially filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from operating the safety locker No. 78 opened at Canara Bank, Town Branch, Udupi and later also included the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the articles in the locker with the defendantbank. The plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant, the petitioner herein. After marriage she stayed with her husband for three months and later due to differences among them she is staying separately. The safety locker is opened in the joint name of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 is the first hirer. It is the case of the plaintiff that when she went to operate the safety locker she was not permitted to do so by the second defendant-Bank. Hence, she filed the suit.

( 3 ) THE defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and questioned the valuation of the suit as done by the plaintiff for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction claiming that the suit ought to have been valued and court-fee paid on the basis of the market value of the gold articles kept in the safety locker. The Trial Court framed a preliminary issue on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of Court. The parties led evidence before it. On perusal of the evidence led on the issue and hearing the parties, the Court-below answered the issue in the negative holding that it has no jurisdiction to go into the matter as the value of the suit property exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction. Being aggrieved the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Court-below. The Court-below allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court directing it to take up the suit on its file in its original number and dispose it off on merits. The order passed by the Court-below is impugned in this revision by the first defendant.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the first defendant that the plaintiff while leaving her maternal home also surreptiously took away the key of the safety locker and, therefore, the defendant No. 1 was forced to inform the second defendant not to permit the plaintiff to operate the locker on her own. The plaintiff claims that the jewels kept in the safety locker belong to her exclusively. The defendant No. 1 denies this assertion and claims that the jewels kept in the safety locker belong to him alone and the plaintiff was also included as an hirer for the sake of convenience and otherwise she has got nothing to do with the jewels.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides in this revision.

( 6 ) THE limited question involved in this revision is about the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court to try the suit as brought by the plaintiff. The suit as brought by the plaintiff is for declaration that she is the exclusive owner of the articles kept in the locker and for a permanent injunction against the first defendant from operating locker No. 78 opened by the plaintiff at Town Branch of canara Bank, Udupi. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suit as brought by the plaintiff without claiming for possession of the articles kept in the locker is not maintainable. But, presently, I am not concerned with the said submission because whether the suit as brought by the plaintiff without the prayer for possession of the articles is maintainable or not is something to be decided by the Trial Court having jurisdiction over the matter and the question whether the Trial Court has pecuniary jurisdiction or not can be gone into and determined dehors the question of mainta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document