Since the issue involved in these two petitions being common, both are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. These petitions are directed against the orders passed on IA Nos.2 and 3 filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 10(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure in OS Nos.206/2015 and 200/2015 respectively filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Banahatti.

3. On service of notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement contending that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, since the plaintiff in respect of non–agricultural land, valued the suit at the market value of Rs.1,000/-. IA Nos.2 and 3 have also been filed by the respective defendants under Order 7 Rule 10(1) of CPC praying for rejection of the plaint as the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court below rejected the applications holding that the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction and value of the suit made at Rs.1,000/- could be proper. Being aggrieved, the defendants are in civil revision petition before this Court.

4. Sri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would vehemently contend that the suit property is nonagricultural land. The question of valuing the suit at Rs.1,000/- as if it is agricultural land would be perverse and capricious. The plaintiff has not produced any material evidence(document) to establish the market value of the suit property. In OS No.123/2015 filed by the plaintiff before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, the plaintiff has shown the market value of the property for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.1,000/- for the purpose of Court fee. The said suit having been withdrawn by the plaintiff with liberty to file the same before the appropriate Court, filing of the suit before the Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.), Banahatti valuing the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction as well as Court fee at Rs.1,000/- is contrary to the stance taken by the plaintiff in the earlier suit. This vital aspect was not appreciated in a right perspective by the Court below while rejecting the applications filed by the defendants/petitioners. It is contended that the suit has to be valued for the purpose of jurisdiction in terms of Section 7(2)(B) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, ‘the Act’) and for the purpose of Court fee, it has to be valued under Section 26 of the Act.

5. According to the learned counsel, the suit ought to have been filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, who had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, even any defence taken by the defendants in the written statement in earlier suit in OS No.123/2015 filed by the plaintiff would not be a criteria for the plaintiff to file the suits before the Court having no jurisdiction. The plaintiff is the master of his suit, decision has to be taken by him to choose the Court having appropriate jurisdiction to try the suit. The order passed by the Court below without adverting to this factual aspect and well settled legal position on this point is perverse and requires to be setaside allowing the above petitions.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments of this Court:

(i) Shrinivas Kenheri Kulkarni Vs. Subbappa Mehetru Nidagalkar, ILR 1976 KAR 1755

(ii) Subrao Ranba Ravalu Kedari Vs. Kallappa Nana Kadapure, 1972 MYSLJ 242

(iii) B S Nagaraj Vs. S. Nanjappa, 1972 MYSLJ(1) 106

(iv) Gowramma Vs. P.Lakshminarayana, 2016(1) KCCR 773

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that the suit filed by the plaintiff was for seeking bare injunction against the defendants. The suit was valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.11,00,000/- and for the purpose of court fee at Rs.1,000/- in the earlier suit OS No.123/2015. The defence was taken b