The court clarified the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction and emphasized the availability of alternate statutory remedies for redressal of grievances.

JUDGMENT

Prithviraj K.Chavan, J. - Rule, returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

3. By this petition, original plaintiffs have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning two orders dated 22.7.2021 and 23.7.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gangapur in Regular Civil Suit No.213/2017, by which plaint came to be returned in terms of Order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, granting liberty to the plaintiffs to appear before a competent Court on 18.8.2021 to initiate a fresh suit.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts germane for decision of this petition, are summerized as follows.

5. Petitioners and respondents are close relatives. Petitioners have filed a suit for perpetual injunction and declaration of title over Gut No.5 admeasuring 3 acres 26 gunthas situated at Ranjangaon (Punished Tq. Gangapur, District aurangabad. (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property' for the purpose of brevity)

6. During pendency of the suit, it is contended that Respondent Nos.1 to 9 sold the suit property to Respondent Nos.10 to 12 by way of a registered sale deed dated 16.10.2017. The petitioners have an apprehension that the Respondents-defendant Nos.10 to 12 might interfere with the possession and ownership of the suit property. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 in their written statement have come up with a plea that valuation of the subject property, as per the sale deed, is Rs.1,20,00,000/- and, therefore, the said Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

7. Respondent Nos.10 to 12, obviously, spoke in tune with rest of the respondents in respect of the jurisdiction of the Court. Respondent Nos.10 to 12 claimed to be bonafide purchasers of the suit property for value.

8. Learned Trial Court permitted the petitioners to amend the plaint by an order dated 23.11.2017 in view of a new development of purchase of the suit property by Respondent Nos.10 to 12.

9. The petitioners contend that the purchase of the suit property by Respondent Nos.10 to 12 is hit by a doctrine of lis pendens and would not oust the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, for, save and except perpetual injunction, no relief has been claimed qua Respondent Nos.10 to 12 as regards the execution of sale deed.

10. Thus, the petitioners have contended that the value of the subject matter of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is, therefore, in-consequential.

11. In the plaint, the petitioners have valued the subject of the suit for Rs.1,000/- and court fee of Rs.200 has been paid.

12. I heard Mr.Godhamgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners for a considerable period. Mr. Godhamgaonkar would strenuously argue to quash and set aside the impugned orders by emphasizing on the fact that despite a mandate of this Court in Writ Petition No.344/2019 on 23.8.2019, directing the trial court to decide an application for temporary injunction expeditiously on or before 22.10.2019, inter alia, directing the parties not to create third party right qua the suit property, the trial court turned Nelson's eye by not complying with the directions issued by this Court. The Counsel would further argue that such breach of directions tantamount to contempt of this Court. The Counsel would further argue that the learned trial court had unwantedly raised the issue of jurisdiction on its own volition instead of deciding the application seeking temporary injunction. according to the Counsel, averments in the plaint are only required to be taken into consideration while ascertaining the valuation of the subject matter.

13. Per contra, Ms. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 10 and 12, supported the impugned orders by pin-pointing the prayer clause (B) of the plaint, wherein the petitioners have sought perpetual injunction as well as declaration of their title qua the suit property against all the respo