P.C. : - Heard Counsel for the parties.

2. Admit. Mr. Shetty waives notice for respondents. He undertakes to file Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents.

3. As short question is involved, Appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith, by consent.

4. This Appeal from Order takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court dated March 10, 2006 in S.C. Suit No. 3295 of 2001 under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure returning the plaint to the plaintiffs for being presented before the appropriate Court. The sole basis on

which this order has been passed can be discerned from Paragraphs 11 and 15 of the impugned Judgment. Before I advert to the said aspect, it will be apposite to reproduce the substantive relief claimed by the plaintiffs in the said suit. The same read thus :

"17. The plaintiffs will rely upon the documents, a list whereof is annexed hereto.

That plaintiffs, therefore, pray : -

(a) That the defendants, their servants, agents and employees be prevented by a permanent and temporary injunction of this Honble Court from disturbing the plaintiff s possession of the said premises, viz : Room No.2 at 94, Kadri Park, S. V. Road, Irla, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai - 400 056, without due process of law.

(b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendants, their servants, agents, employees, contractors and hirelines be prevented by an order and injunction of this Honble Court from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises, viz : the premises at 2/94, Kadri Park, S.V. Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai - 400 056, without due process of law.

(c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, an advocate or any other officer or a fit and proper person be appointed as commissioner to visit the suit premises and make an inventory of articles and things lying in the premises and submit a report to this Honble Court.

(d) That the Sr. Inspector of Police, Juhu Police Station, Mumbai - 49 and his subordinates may be ordered and directed to assist the plaintiffs in enforcing the injunction and other orders that may be granted by this Honble Court.

(e) That ad -interim reliefs in terms of prayers (b), (c) and (d) be granted.

(f) That the costs of the suit be provided for.

(g) such other and further reliefs be granted as the Court may deem fit to grant."

S. The trial Court accepted the stand taken on behalf of the respondents that the suit in substance is on the basis of claim of the plaintiffs to recover sum of Rs. 2,93,000/ - (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety -three Thousand) from the respondents/defendants which was due and payable in the first week of June, 1999. If so understood, the Suit will have to be valued on that basis, though simpliciter for relief of injunction, in which case, the City Civil Court will have no jurisdiction. The Court below has accepted the stand of the respondents that the Suit would fall within the provisions of Article 7 of Schedule I of Bombay Court Fees Act and not under section 6(iv)j) thereon.

6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusing the Plaint, in my opinion, the reason recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained having regard to the frame of the Suit. The substantive relief claimed in the Suit is simpliciter for injunction against the defendants not to disturb their possession without due process of law. Indeed, the plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the suit remises in view of the arrangement arrived at between the parties and that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim sum of Rs. 2,93,000/ - (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety -three Thousand) due and payable in the first week of June, 1999. However, the frame of the suit and the cause of action as spelt out in Paragraph 11 of the Plaint would clearly indicate that the plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the suit property and on that basis, substantive relief of injunction against the defendants not to disturb their possession without d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document