( 1 ) THE respondent No. 1 Jayantilal Nagindas filed Regular Civil Suit No. 216 of 1972 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Surat for a declaration to set aside the release deed alleged to have been executed by him and also for partitioning his Share in certain properties and for some other reliefs. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit respectively. The respondents Nos. 2 3 and 4 were the defendants Nos. 4 5 and 6 respectively in the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants. One of the contentions raised by the original defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and in view of the said contention the trial Judge raised issue No. 14 as to whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 2 ) THE trial Judge by his judgment and order dated 3-12-1977 was pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the trial Courts judgment the plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1978.

( 3 ) THE learned Second Extra Assistant. judge Surat by his judgment and order dated 30-9-1980 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court except the finding of the trial Court that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction. The finding of the trial Court as regards the question of pecuniary jurisdiction was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court further directed that the plaint be returned to the original court of institution i. e. to say the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) Surat. It further directed inter alia that the Civil Judge (S. D.) shall register the suit as a special suit and shall dispose it of in accordance with law. It directed the plaintiff to put the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 20 640 in the first instance.

( 4 ) I may note here that the lower appellate Judge in this judgment dealt with the question of jurisdiction alone. The first point for determination which he framed was whether the trial Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and he found that issue in the negative. The second point for determination was as to whether the decision on other points would survive if the trial Court was not found to have jurisdiction and he answered that point for determination in the negative. On point for determination No. 3 he came to the conclusion that the suit was required to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court and in that regard he held that the suit was required to be sent back to the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D. ).

( 5 ) MR. B. J. Shelat the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that after the judgment and order of the Civil Judge (J. 19.) was passed on 3-12-1977 the pecuniary limits of the Civil Judge (J. D.) is raised from Rs. 10 0 to Rs. 20 0 by Gujarat Act No. XX of 1979 which came into effect from 1-1-1980. Mr. Shelat submitted that the lower appellate Judge has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction was Rs. 20 640 ps. He invited my attention to page 78 of the compilation where in the relevant part of the judgment the trial (Court held to the effect that the share of the plaintiff will be in all Rs 15640 Mr. Shelat submitted that if in this context para 10 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court is read it will be found observed that the finding recorded by the trial Court on the question of issue No. 14 is quite proper. The lower appellate judge however added the courtfees payable on the relief about the declaration on the question of release deed and he added the courtfees payable for that independent relief to the Courtfees payable on the amount of Rs. 15 640 By adding the amount of courtfees the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the pecuniary valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction would be Rs. 20 640 Mr. Shelat submitted that this is not correct as for t