Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Arun Bhansali, J.
Madan Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through District Collector & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2467/2018
Decided On : 06-12-2022
CPC - Jurisdiction - Section 6, 15, 21(2) - The court discussed the pecuniary jurisdiction and the court in which suits should be instituted. It highlighted the rules of procedure and jurisdiction, emphasizing that the courts of higher grade should not be overcrowded with suits that could be tried by lower grade courts. The court also discussed the bar created by Section 6 CPC regarding the jurisdiction of lower grade courts in relation to the amount or value of the subject matter. It further emphasized the importance of raising objections related to competence of the court with reference to pecuniary limits at the earliest possible opportunity.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaratory injunction, permanent injunction, and consequential relief of possession claiming that the suit property belonging to the plaintiff and formal defendants was situated at Tara Nagar. The trial court ordered for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for being presented before the competent court due to the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's order for return of the plaint was not sustainable due to lack of cogent reasons and failure to address the basis for valuation of the suit. The appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff was allowed, and the suit was restored to its original number and remanded back to the trial court to decide the preliminary issue after hearing the parties afresh.
Issues: The issues revolved around the valuation of the suit, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, and the lack of cogent reasons in the trial court's order for return of the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of raising objections related to the competence of the court with reference to pecuniary limits at the earliest possible opportunity and discussed the rules of procedure and jurisdiction regarding the court in which suits should be instituted.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff was allowed, the order dated 18/8/2018 was set aside, and the suit was restored to its original number and remanded back to the trial court to decide the preliminary issue after hearing the parties afresh.
ORDER
1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) CPC has been filed against the order dated 18/8/2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Rajgarh Camp Churu, District Churu, whereby, the trial court has ordered for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for being presented before the competent court.
2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaratory injunction, permanent injunction and consequential relief of possession inter alia claiming that the suit property belonging to the plaintiff and formal defendants no. 8 to 17 is situated at Tara Nagar; chain of title since the issue of Patta in the year 1879 was indicated. It was contended that the State after coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 recorded the land as un-cultivable ’Banjar’ and ’Gochar’, which was unathorized. On the said land, part of Delhi-Bikaner road was constructed and part of it was allotted to Government Sanskrit School and for construction of houses for nomads and Goswami Moksh. The boundaries of the remaining land were indicated. It was then alleged that the State by its order dated 7/6/2002 allotted 3 Bigha 4 Biswa land to the defendant no.6, which was mutated in its name on 18/6/2002. Similarly, on 30/12/2005 68 Bigha land was allotted to defendant no. 3, which was mutated on 13/2/2006. It was claimed that the said allotments to Sanskrit School etc. are null and void qua the plaintiff and the formal defendants for which the plaintiff and the said defendants have right to seek declaration, which is the cause of action. Said averments were followed by grounds questioning the validity of the transfers and the steps taken by the plaintiff from time to time including filing of the suit before the Civil Judge, Tara Nagar.
3. With regard to the valuation of the suit, in para 17 it was indicated that as the defendants have deposited a sum of Rs. 27,20,000/- for development of the Sainik Basti on the land, the same is determined as valuation of the suit and is filed with court fee of Rs.1,37,325/- and for permanent injunction the suit was valued at Rs.400/- and court fee of Rs.30/- was paid on the same.
4. The plaintiff sought the following reliefs in the plaint:
5. The suit originally filed was later on amended.
6. Written statement was filed by defendant nos. 1, 2 and 7 contesting the averments made in the plaint. In relation to para 17 of the plaint pertaining to valuation of the suit and basis thereof, it was submitted that the valuation of the plaint was too low and as per the DLC rates, the land in question is valued at Rs.718,33,71,600/-, whereas, the suit has been valued at Rs.27,20,000/-, which is liable to be rejected. Similar written statement was filed by defendant nos. 4 and 5.
7. After filing of the written statements, the trial court on 19/7/2018 observed that from the perusal of the record it is revealed that the plaintiff has filed the suit against Municipality, Tara Nagar and Sanskrit School for cancellation of allotment of Gochar land and, therefore, it is necessary to decide as a preliminary issue whether the court has the pecuniary jurisdiction or not and, therefore, there is necessity to frame a preliminary issue pertaining to jurisdiction and, therefore, preliminary issue was framed and the matter was kept for hearing on the preliminary issue.
8. After hearing the parties, the trial court by its impugned order dated 18/8/2018 came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has sought cancellation of the allotment letters issued to Municipality and Sanskrit School, which allotment letters fall within the definition of instrument. The allotment made to the Sanskrit School is free of charge and allotment made to the Municipality is for the purpose of residential plots, no declaration has been sought pertaining to the ownership of the land and as only cancellation of the allotment letters has been sought, it cannot be said that this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the said suit as the pecuniary jurisdiction of th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the rules of procedure and jurisdiction, particularly in relation to the pecuniary jurisdiction and the court in whic....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper valuation of the suit and the court's pecuniary jurisdiction as per CPC Sections 6, 15, and 21(2).
The Civil Judge (Senior Division) has jurisdiction to decide suits valued below Rs.5 lacs, and issues of undervaluation must be determined through proper issue framing.
The appellant has the right to decide the value of the suit, but the court fee must be paid on the same amount as the valuation for jurisdiction. If the trial court finds a deficit in court fee, it s....
The valuation of a suit is determined by the nature of the relief claimed, not solely by the market value of the property involved.
Point of law: As per sub-Rule(2) to Rule 10 of Order VII of CPC on returning of a counter claim (plaint), the judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the part....
Interim Application - Contract for sale - Court-fee value and jurisdictional value to be same in certain suits - When there is a reasonable doubt with respect to quantum of court fees, the benefit mu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
