The valuation of the suit should be based on the actual value given by the plaintiff in the plaint, and not on the higher amount of relief claimed.

Order

S.K. Mishra, J.

1. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur on 23.04.2010 in O.S. No. 27 of 2001 refusing to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter referred as the "Code" for brevity, is in question in this case. The present petitioner being the plaintiff filed the suit for decree of divorce, permanent alimony, litigation expenses etc. The defendant (husband) appeared and filed his written statement. He agreed for decree of divorce but disputed the permanent alimony. After hearing, the judgment was passed on 20.02.2009 decreeing the suit in part on contest against the defendant. So far as permanent alimony is concerned, the Court instead of granting one time payment, granted relief on a quarterly basis at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per quarter to the plaintiff and the relief of maintenance to her daughter also on a quarterly basis at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per quarter, but refused cost and expenses of litigation. Such judgment and decree was challenged by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Berhampur, which has been registered as Mat. Appeal No. 1 of 2009. The petitioner filed certified copy of the judgment and decree and on perusal of the same she found that a clerical error had crept in the decree prepared by the office relating to jurisdictional value of the aforesaid suit by erroneously mentioning Rs. 15,00,000/- instead of putting the actual value given by the plaintiff in the plaint filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity, at Rs. 11,000/- as against the word "value of the suit" in the certified copy of the decree.

2. In order to correct the decree as aforesaid, she filed a petition on 03.08.2009 in the aforesaid Mat. Appeal. However, the learned District Judge, by his order dated 17.02.2010 observed that the petition for correction of the decree may be made before the lower court and the petitioner, if so advised, may make a prayer before the lower court for correction of the decree thereby disposed of the said petition. It is further stated that the appellate court further observed that the plaintiff-appellant's prayer that the documents may be submitted in the appeal, may be returned to her for correction.

3. The plaintiff accordingly filed an application before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). She has stated at paragraph 22 of the plaint that she had valued the suit at Rs. 11,000/- and the defendant in his written statement has never objected to the said valuation put by the plaintiff and that the defendant never pleaded that the same is erroneous. Also by way of amendment, she claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- in place of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and the same was allowed by the Court and at that stage also the defendant did not file any objection to the aforesaid jurisdictional value of Rs. 11,000/- of the suit. On such argument, the petitioner prayed for correcting the valuation of the suit in the decree and for necessary correction of the certified copy.

4. The respondent (opposite party in this case) has filed his written counter affidavit and prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner be rejected. As per the respondent, the petitioner has prayed for decree of divorce and permanent alimony of Rs. 15,00,000/-, hence, she claimed two reliefs in the suit. The plaintiff filed a separate petition before the appellate Court to amend the decree to which he filed his counter stating that there is no clerical or arithmetical mistake so as to be corrected. According to him, such petition of the plaintiff before the appellate court was rejected. The respondent further objected that since the suit is for decree of divorce and permanent alimony and the plaintiff has to value his suit of the decree for divorce and also for the valuation of the permanent alimony separately and therefore no mistake was committed by the original court in mentioning the v