IMPORTANT POINT
The valuation of a suit is determined by the nature of the relief claimed, not solely by the market value of the property involved.

ORDER :

M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

Aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2024 in I.A.No.352 of 2023 in O.S.No.11 of 2020 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Trial Court’), the defendant has preferred the present Revision to set aside the impugned order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the revision petitioner to file the present revision, are that the defendant has filed I.A.No.352 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to return the plaint for submission of the same before the competent court. The brief averments of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.352 of 2023 are as under :

(a) The respondent/plaintiff filed at first instance present suit for mere injunction against the petitioner/defendant by valuing the suit relief under notional value as the notional value is to be at the choice of plaintiff. The plaintiff valued the relief for more than Rs.20,00,000/- to attract the jurisdiction of the Court.

(b) The respondent/plaintiff earlier filed a suit for injunction against their Sangham before the learned Junior Civil Judge at Kollapur, wherein the respondent/plaintiff could not get ex parte injunction, as such, by enhancing the notional value the respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit by showing notional value of more than Rs.20,00,000/- to attract the jurisdiction of the Court by suppressing the fact of earlier suit.

(c) The respondent/plaintiff got amended the present suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession from the original status of injunction and valued the suit for Rs.28,35,000/-, out of which the value of the property as per the valuation certificate is Rs.12,00,000/- and for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession 3/4th value is Rs.8,00,000/- as per Section 24 (a) of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. When the primary suit value is only Rs.8,00,000/- as per the own pleading of the respondent/plaintiff, he cannot value the subsidiary relief of mandatory injunction for the value of Rs.20,10,000/- which is more than the original value. If the original value is taken into consideration, the Court (trial court) has got no jurisdiction to try the suit. Hence, the petitioner/defendant prayed to return the plaint to submit before the competent court to proceed further.

4. In reply to the petition, the respondent/plaintiff filed counter, the brief averments of which are as under :

(i) It is a fact that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction in JCJ Court at Kollapur in O.S.No.117 of 2020 against another Sangham but not against the petitioner/defendant Sangamh. There is no fast and hard rule that the notional value for mandatory injunction should not be valued than the value of relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession.

(ii) In the amendment petition itself the respondent/plaintiff put the said valuations and the petitioner/defendant did not contest on the said matter of valuation and the matter of jurisdiction. Finally the Court accepted the respondent/plaintiff’s valuation and the jurisdiction valuation in the amendment petition by allowing the amendment petition. The petitioner/defendant did not file any revision against the order of the Court in the amendment petition and the said order passed in amendment petition became final, as such, the petitioner/defendant is estopped from raising the same pleas by way of filing the petition.

(iii) The petitioner/defendant filed the same petition on the same pleas along with other pleas for return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the C.P.C., in I.A.No.128 of 2020 and the same was dismissed on 13.02.2023. Hence, once a petition was dismissed under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, against the same petition under the same provision is not mai