The plaintiff's valuation for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction should be accepted unless demonstratively undervalued.

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. Admit.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have also been served.

3. At request of learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

4. The appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and delivery of accounts & records against the respondents. The appellant claims to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is an All India Federation that serves to promote the welfare of Other Backward Classes (for short 'OBC') Railways employees in various Railways organizations. The respondents are alleged to have been the Office Bearers of the appellant and constituted a part of the Central Executive Committee who had been expelled from the post held by them as well as the primary membership of the Society/Federation w.e.f. 14.8.2011. The appellant/plaintiff alleges various irregularities against the respondents/defendants in their capacity as Office Bearers of the appellant.

5. The case of the appellant is that despite expulsion letter having been issued to the respondents, they have failed to hand over the records, details of the financial deals, bank statements, etc., pertaining to the appellant-Federation and that they continue to retain control over the documents including the minutes books. They are, thus, alleged to be withholding the property of the appellant-Federation. A decree of permanent injunction is sought restraining the defendants from representing themselves as Office Bearers of the appellant-Federation and accessing or using the property belonging to the appellant-Federation as also to deliver all such properties as are within the possession of the defendants and to restore the funds of the appellant-Federation.

6. The relevant paragraph for the purposes of the controversy in the present appeal qua the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction reads as under:

“12. Valuation: The Plaintiff has valued the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in relief No.(a) of the Prayer clause at Rs.20,00,100/- for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. The appropriate court fee of Rs.22,000/- is affixed on the Plaint. Value for prayer (b) & (c) fixed at Rs.130/- each and court fee paid accordingly.”

7. The appellant also filed an application seeking interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Code').

8. Summons in the suit and notice in the application were issued on 19.10.2011 returnable on 10.1.2012. On the said date the counsel for respondent No.1 is stated to have orally raised an objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit and the matter was adjourned to 2.2.2012 for deciding the issue of valuation of the suit filed by the appellant as plaintiff.

9. In terms of the impugned order dated 2.2.2012, the learned single Judge has concluded that the appellant could not arbitrarily or whimsically value the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction to bring its case within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Judge relied upon Section 15 of the said Code to conclude that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try the suit and on going through the plaint he found that the appellant as plaintiff had failed to disclose as to why the value for the relief of permanent injunction had been stated to be Rs. 20,00,100.00 for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. It has, thus, been held that the suit ought to have been presented before the subordinate courts which is lowest grade court competent to try and entertain the suit and directed the plaint to be accordingly returned to the plaintiff in terms of Order 7 Rule 10 of the said Code and for the Registry to return the plaint for its proper presentation before the competent court of jurisdiction of the lowest grade.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conclusion of the l