Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. The present appeal challenges the order dated 16.2.2009 of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has returned the plaint for presentation to the court of appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction by upholding the preliminary objection as to the non-maintainability of the suit before the court on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.

2. It is worthwhile at this stage to reproduce the relevant para 29 of the plaint which pertains to the valuation of the suit for pecuniary jurisdiction and which runs as under:-

“ a) For an order of permanent injunction restraining Defendants; this is valued for Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and the Court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon.

b) For an order of permanent injunction restraining Defendants from passing off, this relief is valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and Court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon.

c) For an order of delivery up, this relief is valued for purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and Court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon.

d) For an order of rendition of amounts; this relief is tentatively valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.1000/- and Court fee of Rs.150/- is affixed; the Plaintiff undertakes to pay such additional Court fee as would be found due when the actual account is rendered and ascertained by this Hon’ble Court.

e) The rest of the prayers are incapable of valuation, and, therefore, do not attract Court fee.

Thus, the suit is valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.20,10,000/- and appropriate Court fee of Rs.22,500 is paid thereon.”

3. The above paragraph with respect to valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction pertains to a suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking reliefs of injunctions, rendition of account and delivery of offending material on account of the defendants allegedly selling cabinets for water purifier which the plaintiff claims is, inter alia, infringing the registered design of the plaintiff.

.4. In view of the averments of the appellant in paragraph 29 of the plaint reproduced above, the learned Single Judge has given the following finding:-

.“Where the total value of the suit is Rs.1600/- a plaintiff does not have liberty to affix a higher Court fee on the suit so as to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court he prefers. A suit for the value of Rs.1600/- for the purpose of jurisdiction has to be tried by Civil Judge and has to be filed before the Civil Judge. The plaintiff after valuing the suit at Rs.1600/- could not have paid Court fee on Rs.20,10,000/- and filed the suit before High Court. If this kind of valuation of a suit is allowed then it would result into forum shopping and a person in total disregard of Suit Valuation Act affix Court fee at any amount, pay Court fee of the Court where he wants to get his suit tried i.e. before Civil Judge or before Additional District Judge or before the High Court (since all the three have original jurisdiction) and get his matter fixed before that Court. Section 15 of CPC then becomes redundant and the legislative mandate that suit shall be instituted in lowest grade Court competent to try it shall stand nullified”.

.5. We find no fault with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. A plaint in a suit when the same fixes the value of the different causes of action and reliefs claimed thereon for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction, the total value for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction would be the sum total of the values resulting from the addition of the valuation of the causes of action. This is the effect of reading Section 17 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. Once that is done, the plaintiff cannot thereafter arbitrarily state that the pecuniary jurisdiction is a wholly different figure than the sum total of the valuations of the different causes of action.

.