JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan -II, Jaipur (for short 'the learned court below') in Civil Suit No. 56/2020 (484/2012) (36/2008) CIS No. 1551/2014 titled as Meeta Agarwal v. Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti and Ors. by which the application filed by the defendants respondents has been allowed and the plaint has been ordered to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for filing the same before the Competent Court.

2. Before deciding the controversy, it is necessary to mention the facts of the case. The plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred as the 'plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration, possession, damages, mandatory and permanent injunction with regard to the disputed property described in Para 1 of the plaint. It was stated in the plaint that the disputed property was purchased by the plaintiff from one Balram vide agreement dated 04.01.1992 and the possession of the same was handed over to the plaintiff by said Balram. On 15.06.1996, allotment letter was also transferred in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant. Thereafter, boundary wall was constructed around the disputed property. When the father of the plaintiff visited the site on 03.02.2006, then he found that certain Land Mafias had broken the locks of the plot by trespassing upon it. When he asked them about the right, title of the property in question, then they started quarreling with the father of the plaintiff. An FIR was also lodged in this regard and finally the instant suit has been filed before the learned court below.

3. Para 24 and 25 of the plaint deals with the valuation of the suit and jurisdiction of the Court, which read as under:-

**24& ;g fd cfygkt ekfy;r nkok ckcr~ ?kks"k.kk :i;s 400@&dke dh tkdj U;k; 'kqYd :i;s 30@&: ckcr~ vkKkRed fu"ks/kkKk :i;s 400@& dk;e dh tkdj U;k; 'kqYd 30@&:i;s o rqM+okus vfrØe.k rFkkdfFkr dksVM+h dh Hkwfe dh ekfy;r 10]000@&:i;s dk;e dh tkdj U;k; 'kqYd :i;s 250@& ,oa ckcr~ csn[kyh o fnyk;s tkus dCtk oknhuh dks vkoafVr Hkw[k.M dh [kjhn dher jkf'k :i;s 20]000@&:i;k dk;e dh tkdj U;k; 'kqYd 750@&:i;k ,oa fnukad 03-02-2006 dks tcfd Áfroknh la[;k 2 o 7 }kjk oknhuh ds mDr Hkw[k.M ij voS/k :i ls vfrØe.k dj dksBM+h dk fuekZ.k fd;k x;k rc ls :i;s 1000@&:i;s Áfrekg dh nj ls dksBM+h dh Hkwfe ds gtkZ bLrsekyh ds :i esa nkok nk;jh rd 26 ekg dk gtkZ bLrsekyh :i;s 26]000@&:i;k v{kjs NCchl gtkj :i;s dk;e fd, tkdj U;k; 'kqYd :i;s 1200@& ij okn&i= ÁLrqr gSA bl Ádkj dqy dksVZ Qhl 2260@&:i;s ij nkok gktk ÁLrqr gSA
25& ;g fd nkok gktk cfygkt ekfy;r nkok o fLFkfr lEifRr eqdnek dkfcys lekIr vnkyr gktk gSA**

4. The defendants respondents (hereinafter referred as the 'defendants') submitted written statement of denial to the plaint and denied the averments made in the plaint. Reply of the defendant with regard to Para Nos. 24 and 25 of the plaint is as under:-

**24& ;g fd okn i= dh en la[;k&24 xyr] cscqfu;kn ,oa vk/kkjghu gksus ls drbZ Lohdkj ugha gSA oknh }kjk okni= dk ewY;kadu xyr :i ls djrs gq, de U;k; 'kqYd vnk fd;k gS rFkk fookfnr lEifRr dk ewY;kadu fdl vk/kkj ij fd;k gSA of.kZr ugha fd;k gSA ,slh lwjr esa oknh dk okn i= dkuwuu pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA
25& ;g fd okn i= dh en la[;k&25 dkuwuh gksus ds dkj.k tokc eksgrkt ugha gSA**

5. Bare perusal of the aforesaid paras clearly indicates that no such objection was taken by the defendants with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

6. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff had filed the instant suit way back in the year 2008 and written statement was submitted by the defendants and no objection was taken by defendants with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties several issues were framed. Issue No.6 is relevant, which is as under:-

6& vk;k okfnuh }kjk okn i= dk ewY;kadu xyr :i ls djrs gq, de U;k; 'kqYd vnk fd;k x;k gS rFkk fookfnr lEifRr dk ewY;kadu fdl vk/kkj ij fd;k gS of.