VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J.

1. Aggrieved of the order dated 24th November, 2016, granting application for Temporary Injunction; the defendant/appellant has instituted the present misc. appeal.

2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the plaintiff/non-appellant instituted suit proceedings stating that he is residing in the residential house which he got as a co-sharer of the ancestral property. On the vacant land on the southern side of the house of the plaintiff/non-appellant, the defendant/appellant started construction and carried out an excavation up to the depth of 25 feet with the purpose of construction of a basement adjacent to the house of the plaintiff/non-appellant, which resulted into a serious damage to the foundation of the house of the plaintiff/non-appellant and the walls above the foundation developed cracks leading to imminent danger to the life and property of the plaintiff/non-appellant. The trial Court, taking note of the facts pleaded and the materials available on record as well as upon hearing the counsel for the parties, made the impugned order dated 24th November, 2016, restraining the defendant/appellant, from proceedings further with the construction and refill the foundation dugout along with the foundation wall of the plaintiff/non-appellant, without any delay.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of the appeal, urged that the impugned order dated 24th November, 2016, is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court as the suit for permanent injunction has been instituted on a valuation of Rs.400/-, and therefore, is not maintainable in the Court of Additional District Judge, Chirawa, for the same ought to have been instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, as contemplated under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2014.

4. Learned counsel would further contend that Court fees of Rs. 30/- has been paid in the backdrop of the valuation of the suit as Rs. 400/-, and thus, the jurisdiction to try the subject matter is with the Court of first instance i.e. Civil Judge in view of the contemplation under Section 26 of the Court fees and Valuation Act, 1961 read with Section 151 CPC.

5. It is further urged that damages have not been quantified and are to be calculated in future; therefore, in such circumstances, the application for grant of Temporary Injunction could not have been entertained by the Court below.

6. Referring to the contents of the written statements, learned counsel asserted that specific facts have been pleaded as to the pecuniary jurisdiction, which would determine the forum for the purpose of sustainability of the suit proceedings but the Court below without adjudicating upon the jurisdictional aspect, has made the impugned order dated 24th November, 2016.

7. Per contra: Mr. Daulat Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/non-appellant, while supporting the impugned order, urged that the trial Court has made the order, after a careful examination of the pleadings of the parties, materials available on record and in the backdrop of the fact that the wall adjoining to the plot of the defendant/appellant, has developed cracks owing to the excavation carried out by the defendant/appellant for the purpose of construction of a basement and these facts have also been detailed out in the report submitted by the Court Commissioner. Hence, the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court in the singular facts of the case at hand.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar, so also carefully scanned the impugned order dated 24th November, 2016.

9. Undeniably, the defendant/appellant, for the purpose of construction of a basement excavated foundation/dugout to the depth of 25 fe