ORDER:- This is a revision petition filed by the original plaintiff under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dholka, dated 29th September, 1971, below application, Ex 170, in Regular Civil Suit No. 125 of 1969.

2. This revision petition raises many interesting questions.

3. The facts giving rise to this revision petition, briefly stated, are as under:-

The petitioner filed Civil Suit No.125 of 1969 against the defendant (opponent) in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dholka. That suit was for obtaining permanent injunction restraining the opponent from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of land situate in village Ambaliara, Taluka Dholka, bearing Block No.508, admeasuring 4 acres 8 gunthas. According to the petitioner, that field was agreed to be purchased by him from Shantaben Mohanbhai and Laxmiben Mohanlal. That Banakhat was executed on 28th March, 1969, and the land was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs.10,501/-, out of which, Rs.7,001/-were paid on that date by him and on that very day, actual possession of the suit land was handed-over to him, and since then, it was in his actual possession and enjoyment. Thereafter, he had made improvements therein by spending a sum of Rs.2,400/-. The opponent had an intention to purchase that property and that is why he had started interfering with his possession and enjoyment. During the pendency of the suit, plaint was amended as the sale document came to be executed in respect of the suit land. In that respect, amendment was made by adding para 2-A.

4. In this suit, opponent raised several contentions. Issues were framed at Ex.59 and one of the issues raised, viz., Issue No.5-A, was, 'Whether the trial Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit'. That issue and other issues which were ordered to be heard as preliminary issues, were decided by the predecessor or present Trial Judge, Mr. K.H. Banker. By an order, Ex.75, that issue was decided against the opponent and the opponent's contention in that behalf regarding want of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court was negatived.

5. Thereafter, application, Ex.100 was given by the petitioner to permit him to amend his written statement. That was disallowed by the present trial Judge. Evidence of the petitioner's eleven witnesses was recorded and the case was pending for recording evidence that be led by the opponent. Ex.101 was given by the opponent. Therein, again he wanted to raise Issue No.1-B regarding this very contention about pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. That application was heard by the present Trial Judge and it was rejected by his order, dated 5-7-1971. In para 5 of that order, in this behalf, he has observed:

"So far as proposed Issue No.1-B is concerned, the learned Advocate for the defendant does not press for the same. That, apart from it, at Ex.75, my learned predecessor has considered the question for pecuniary jurisdiction and held against the defendant.

It is thus evident that another effort made by the opponent to re-agitate that very question regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, proved abortive. Thereafter, as said earlier then the suit was pending for hearing of evidence that be led by the opponent, application, Ex.170, was given by the opponent stating therein that the present suit being a suit for obtaining perpetual injunction, it is not capable of monetary valuation and consequently, it cannot be said that the value of the subject-matter of the suit exceeds Rs.10,000/- or not. That being the position, such a suit could only be heard by the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, as the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, has got limited jurisdiction to hear the suit, the valuation of the subject-matter of which does not exceed Rs.10,000/-. In the instant case, value of the suit property, i.e., land itself, is shown to be Rs.10,501/. In para 4, it is stated that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document