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.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present civil miscellaneous petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of order dated 25th July, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Ranchi in MCA No.647 of 2024 arising out of Original Suit No.388 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the C.P.C. has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Original Suit No.628 of 2015 (renumbered as O.S. 388 of 2023) was instituted on behalf of the plaintiffs (O.P. Nos.1, 2 and 3 herein) against the defendants including the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Ranchi for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the value of the suit was valued at Rs. 5 lacs.

3. On behalf of the petitioners/defendants, an application was given under Order VII Rule 11 (b) of the Civil Procedure Code before the court concerned and same has been rejected by the court concerned on the ground that issue could be decided by the Court by framing the issue whether the suit is undervalued or not. It has been further submitted that the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I was not empowered to decide the application itself because the valuation of the suit being up to Rs.5 lacs for the same the very application should have been disposed of by the learned Court of Munsif. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the case law of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 1315.

4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Part Nos.1 to 3 opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that in the application of the petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC, it has been pleaded that the valuation of the suit property was much above Rs.5 lacs as shown in the plaint itself taking into consideration the averment made in the application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC. The learned trial court has rightly rejected the application on the ground that this question could have been decided only after framing the issue in regard to the suit being under valued or not. It has also been further submitted that the Original suit was filed in the year 2015 and at that time, the suit was also under the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). Subsequently, during pendency of the very suit, the jurisdiction of the court of Munsif was enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5 lacs. As such the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has to decide the very suit itself, since, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) having unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction.

5. Admittedly, the Original (Title) Suit No.628 of 2015 was instituted on behalf of the plaintiffs Smt. Ratan Kumari Surana and two others against Babita Singh and others on 26th November, 2015. The copy of the plaint is Annexure-I of this civil miscellaneous petition. In this plaint, the suit is valued at Rs.5 lacs in view of paragraph 47 of the plaint.

6. The petitioner/defendant had also filed the written statement which is Annexure-II. In the written statement also in paragraph 73 of the written statement, the defendant had raised the plea that the suit is undervalued as the present value of the suit is Rs.50 lacs.

7. The defendant/ petitioner herein has also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC which is Annexure-III of this civil miscellaneous petition. This application has been filed by the defendants/petitioners with these averments that the instant suit was at the stage of evidence and the plaintiffs have misinformed in regard to value of the suit property. The plaintiffs has valued the suit at Rs.5 lacs. The defendant no.2 has obtained the circle rate fixed by the Government of Jharkhand and from bare perusal of the same, it is found that the valuation of the suit property was much above as valued by the plaintiffs. In view of these averments prayed to reject the plaint.

8. Against this appl