IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisos of Section 50(2) and Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, in determining the maintainability of the appeal before the court.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for appellant and also the learned counsel for respondent with regard to the maintainability of this Miscellaneous First Appeal before this Court. Admittedly, the impugned order which is in challenge is passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, at Nelamangala in O.S.No.5/2022. The application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was allowed and the impugned order of injunction has been granted, the same is challenged in this appeal. The office has raised the objection. This Court while considering the matter, kept open the maintainability and passed an interim order of status quo.

2. Now, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that this Miscellaneous First Appeal is not maintainable before this Court. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction before the Civil Judge Junior Division and Miscellaneous Appeal lies before Senior division and not Miscellaneous First Appeal lies before this Court.

3. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that this Court has to look into the proviso of Section 52 of the Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the very proviso of Section 50(2) of the said Act, which reads as follows :

Section 50(2): “ In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint ”.

4. The counsel referring this proviso of Section 50(2) of Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 would vehemently contend that though the suit is filed before Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and the suit is valued under Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and according to the counsel, the purpose of jurisdiction, the matter has to be valued on market value and for the purpose of the Court Fee also to be separately valued and while valuing the property, both aspects to be taken note of and if it is plaint is silent, then Section 50(2) of Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 applies.

5. Having perused the proviso of Section 50(2) of Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, it is stated that in a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint. Hence, the counsel for appellant would vehemently contend that appeal is maintainable.

6. The counsel in support of his argument also relied upon the judgment of this Court AIR 1972 MYS 242 in case of Subrao Ramba Ravalu Kedari and others V/s Kallappa Nana Kadapure and another wherein discussion made in paragraph No.4 and though citation goes against him, since the Division Bench Court considered the earlier order passed in CRP.No.1791/1969 reported in AIR 1972 MYS 163 that the value for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction with regard to matters falling on the clause (c) of Section 26 of the Act should be same as the value at which relieves valued by the plaintiff are Rs.100/- whichever may be the higher. The counsel in support of his argument contend that it has to be valued for the purpose of valuation with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction and also for the Court Fee. Hence, the appeal is maintainable.

7. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that suit is valued under Section 26(c) of Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act. The value of the suit is also Rs.1,000/- and accordingly, Court fee is paid and suit is also filed before the Civil Judge (Jn. Division). The counsel would vehemently contend that Section 50(2) of Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act is not applicable. The counsel also brought to noti