1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsels for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. This petition challenges Order dated 28 October 2014 made by the 16th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, holding that it has pecuniary jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide Regular Civil Suit No.1490 of 2014 instituted by Respondent Nos. 1 to 21 (Original Plaintiffs).

3. The case set out by the Plaintiffs in the suit is that between the years 1972 and 1997, by means of several registered deeds and rectification deeds, the Plaintiffs purchased large property comprising inter alia 18 plots, open spaces, internal roads and common areas from the original vendors Bapu Gaikwad and Shankarrao Cornell. The original vendors however, by registered Sale Deeds dated 10 February 2009 and 19 April 2011, have purported to sell to the Petitioner (original Defendant No. 12), a portion of such large property admeasuring totally about 49 Ares corresponding mainly to the areas occupied by open spaces, internal roads and common areas. Such portion has been described as 'suit property' in the plaint. Apprehending that the Petitioner may deal with the suit property, the Plaintiffs have applied for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit property and injunctive relief to restrain the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiffs possession of the suit property or from creating any third party interest in respect of the same.

4. The Petitioner (original Defendant No. 12) by application dated 26 September 2014 urged the framing of preliminary issue as to pecuniary jurisdiction and for directions to appropriately value the suit and pay deficit court fees. The provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 9A of the CPC were made reference to, in such application. The case as set out in the said application is that the suit property is 'Non Agricultural Property' and consequently ought to have been valued at Rs.1,03,59,24,000/-. Further, the Plaintiffs ought to have paid the maximum court fee of Rs.3,00,000/- thereon. Upon such correct valuation and payment of deficit court fees, the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Pune, where the suit is instituted, would cease to have pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter. It was further urged that enquiry be initiated under Section 8 of The Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 ('said Act') in the matter of valuation of the suit property.

5. By the impugned order dated 28 October 2014, the learned Civil Judge has held that the suit property is an 'Agricultural Property' and consequently there is no fault, either in the valuation of the suit or in the matter of payment of court fees. Hence, the present petition.

6. Mr. P. S. Dani, the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner whilst reiterating the case set out in the application dated 26 September 2014 urged that the Petitioner be permitted to raise a more fundamental objection in the matters of valuation and payment of deficit court fee. In this regard, Mr. Dani submitted that since the plaint contains specific averments to the effect that the two Sale Deeds dated 10 February 2009 and 19 April 2011 are null and void, the suit, in substance, is nothing but a suit for avoidance of the two Deeds. By means of clever drafting and astute pleadings, the Plaintiffs cannot avoid proper valuation and payment of court fees. If the substance of the suit is taken into consideration, then the valuation of the suit and payment of court fees thereon had to abide by the provisions contained in Section 6(iv)(ha) of the said Act. Further, Mr. Dani submitted that prayer clause (b) of the plaint, which seeks a declaration that the Plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit property, implicitly seeks declaration that the two Sale Deeds on basis of which the Petitioner claims title to the suit property, are null and void. Besides, in paragraphs 13, 15 and 16 of the plaint, there are clear averments that the two Sale Deeds are null an