(1.) Instead of admitting the appeal and keeping the same pending, we propose to hear out the appeal itself by treating it as on days list, as this appeal raises a pure question of law as to the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court and at the same time, the defendant/respondent has also entered appearance in the appeal through Mr. Bose, the learned Advocate.

(2.) This appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against Order No. 11 dated 7th September, 2009 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta, by which the said Court has dismissed the application on merit by holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove a prima facie case to have an order of temporary injunction.

(3.) Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up with the present first miscellaneous appeal.

(4.) In the plaint of the suit, out of the present appeal arises, the plaintiff prayed for declaration that an agreement entered into between the parties, by which the plaintiff took loan of Rs. 17 lakh and odd was vitiated by fraud and therefore, the same should be declared as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the possession of the vehicle purchased by the plaintiff with the money taken from the defendant.

(5.) The main grievance of the plaintiff was that although the plaintiff has taken loan of more than Rs. 17 lakh and with the aid of that money, he has purchased the vehicle, the defendant did not disclose the terms of repayment of such loan and while handing over the vehicle to the defendant purchased with the aid of the money taken by way of loan, the signatures of the plaintiff were taken on blank papers and blank cheques.

(6.) The plaintiff, therefore, alleged that such agreement was vitiated by fraud and as such, for the alleged violation of the terms of agreement, the vehicle purchased by the plaintiff from the money advanced by the defendant cannot be seized.

(7.) Such a suit was valued at Rs. 50/- for declaration and further sum of Rs. 50/-for permanent injunction and the suit was filed in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, whose pecuniary limit of jurisdiction is restricted to Rs. 10 lakh only.

(8.) While opposing the application for temporary injunction, the defendant took specific point that the City Civil Court at Calcutta had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the admitted fact that the plaintiff took loan of more than Rs. 17 lakh by virtue of the agreement between the parties, which the plaintiff wants to avoid on the allegation of fraud.

(9.) The learned Trial Judge, however, while disposing of the application for injunction on merit took note of such objection, but overruled the same on the ground that in a suit for declaration and injunction, the plaintiff can value his relief according to his own choice.

(10.) In this appeal, Mr. Bose, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, has at the very outset taken the plea of want of pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court and we propose to deal with such question before entering into the merit.

(11.) There is no dispute that in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the suit is valued according to the valuation of the relief and where the nature of the declaration is such that it has no objective standard of assessing the valuation, the plaintiff can value the relief according to his own choice ; but in a case where from the case made out by the plaintiff, it is apparent that the relief is capable of appropriate valuation according to the case made out by the plaintiff, in such a case, the plaintiff cannot arbitrarily value the relief according to his whim.

(12.) As pointed out earlier, it has appeared at the time of hearing of the application for temporary injunction that the plaintiff has admittedly taken the money worth more than Rs. 17 lakh and has purchased the vehicle in question by the said money