JUDGMENT - KANADE V.M., J.:---The appellants-plaintiffs are challenging the order passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court has held that the appellants-plaintiffs should have valued the plaint as per the prevailing market value of Room No. 302 which would be beyond Rs. 50,000/- and, therefore, that would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The trial Court, therefore, returned the plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal from order are as follows.

2. Appellants are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants.

3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit in the City Civil Court and have averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 had acquired the premises some time in the year 1957 from one Mr. Maharaj. The said premises was a room admeasuring 10 x 12 ft. being Room No. 25 in New Municipal Chawl No. 47-K, formerly known as Putalabai Chawl, Ganesh Nagar, Mumbai-400 012. The said premises was situated on the land belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint was that thought the said premises were acquired by the plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 4 yet, defendant No. 4, being his elder brother, the said premises were acquired in his name. In the plaint, a further averment has been made that the rent receipts in respect of the said premises stand in the name of defendant No. 4. However, the plaintiffs were contributing their share towards the rent to the defendant Nos. 4 and 6. Further, it is stated that plaintiffs have been residing in the said premises since 1957 and they have relied upon the ration card, identity card issued by Morarji Gokuldas Spinning and Weaving Company, xerox copy of the pass-book issued by the Mahanagar Co-operative Bank, State Bank of India, Voters Identity Card and other documents. It is averred in para 4 of the plaint that Rehabilitation Scheme was introduced for redevelopment of Ganesh Nagar wherein the said premises were situated. It is stated that under the Rehabilitation Scheme, the tenants/occupiers of the said Ganesh Nagar are to be accommodated in the newly constructed building developed by defendant No. 2. It is their case that defendant Nos. 4 to 6, with a view to grab the premises in the new building, in collusion with the other defendants, succeeded in getting allotment of Room No. 302, 3rd floor, Ganesh Nagar, Mumbai-400 012 without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 9-9-2003 when the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs and, therefore, they had to file present suit. In para 16 of the plaint, prayer Clause (a) is quoted which reads as follows:

"(a) This Honble Court may be pleased to declare that the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to the permanent alternate accommodation viz. Room No. B-302, 3rd Floor, Building No. 4, Ganesh Nagar, Mumbai 400 012, granted in lieu of the said premises viz. Room No. 25, New Municipal Chawl No. 47-k, Ganesh Nagar, Mumbai 400 012, along with defendants Nos. 4 to 6."

Prayer Clause (b) has been deleted and prayer Clause (c) is the interim relief which is claimed during the pendency of the suit. In para 13, it is stated that the subject-matter of the present suit was not susceptible to the monetary valuation and, they, therefore, valued the said claim at Rs. 1000/-.

4. The defendants raised a preliminary issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and, therefore, the City Civil Court framed a preliminary issue and, thereafter, by order dated 16-12-2003, the trial Court returned the plaint.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that, essentially, suit was a suit seeking performance of the statutory

Click Here to Read the rest of this document