( 1. ) THIS revision under Section 115 Civil P. C, is by the plaintiff against the order, dated 20-8-1959, passed by Shri A. K. Pandey, Second Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 135-A of 1959 holding that the valuation of the relief of injunction claimed in the plaint at Rs. 500/-was inadequate and that the real valuation would be Rs. 47,400/ -. Although originally the trial Judge demanded court-fees on the valuation of Rs. 47,400/-, the learned Judge, by a later order, held that he could not demand court-fees, as he had no jurisdiction to try the suit on the valuation as found. Therefore, he ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to proper Court under Order 7, Rule 10, C. P. C. That order was passed on 28-8-1959. Although that order may be appealable under Order 43, Rule 1 (a), C. P. C. , revision under Section 115, C. P. C. , would be competent against the previous order, dated 20-8-1959.

( 2. ) THE parties entered into an agreement, dated 26th July, 1958, regarding the lease of a cinema theatre, by which the cinema theatre belonging to the first non-applicant was agreed to be leased out to the applicant. It is not necessary to reproduce the terms of the said agreement.

( 3. ) THE applicant filed the present suit for a mere injunction and valued it at Rs. 500/ -. In the plaint, it was alleged that the first defendant was contemplating to lease out the theatre to other persons and was not abiding by the agreement entered into by her with the applicant on 26-7-1958. The applicant also prayed for leave to reserve his relief claiming specific performance of the contract of lease by filing a suit later. Therefore, in the present suit a mere negative injunction was claimed seeking to restrain the non-applicants from leasing out the theatre to any other person.

( 4. ) THE learned Judge of the trial Court expressed the view that the plaintiff was also required to claim specific performance of the contract of lease and that for that reason he could not merely claim a negative injunction against the defendants. As regards the claim for specific performance the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the valuation would be Rs. 47,400/-, which would be the amount of lease money for one year. In that view of the case, the applicants plaint was directed to be returned for presentation to proper Court on the basis that the trial Court would have no jurisdiction to try the suit upon the valuation as found by the Court.

( 5. ) THE learned counsel for the applicant urged that it was open to the plaintiff to value his claim of injunction according to his own estimate and unless the valuation were found to be totally inadequate or wholly arbitrary, the Court could not interfere with the same.

( 6. ) IT is true that the plaintiff can value his relief of injunction, as he likes, unless the Court finds it to be wholly unreasonable or absolutely arbitrary. In that event alone, the Court would interfere with the plaintiffs valuation. But, in the absence of those conditions the Court would not ordinarily interfere with a plaintiffs valuation regarding the relief of injunction, as laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Motiram v. Daulat, ILR (1938) Nag 558: (AIR, 1939 Nag 50 ).

( 7. ) BUT the question in the present case is not merely regarding the valuation of the relief of injunction. The real question is whether the plaintiff can be permitted to claim a mere negative injunction, although he might be found to be in a position to claim a mandatory injunction by claiming specific performance of the contract of lease. It is true that the plaintiff sought leave of the Court to reserve his relief of specific performance and to confine the present suit to the negative injunction. I am of opinion that, ordinarily the Court would be disinclined to give him liberty to reserve his claim for specific performance for a separate suit. It would be so mainly for the consideration that his claim of specific performance would no