HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1031/2022

Basant Lal Son Of Shri Omkarmal Gupta, Aged About 73 Years,

Resident Of Shahjahnpur, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar

(Rajasthan) At Present Residing At Z-3/143-1 Abdul Khabir Road

Badarwala, Kolkata (West Bengal).

----Appellant-Plaintiff

Versus

1.

Shankerlal Son Of Bansidhar, Resident Of Shahjahanpur,

Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar.

2.

Deepak Gupta Alias Teenu Son Of Shri Shankerlal,

Resident Of Shahjahanpur, Tehsil Neemrana District Alwar.

3.

Mohit Son Of Shri Shankerlal, Resident Of Shahjahanpur,

Tehsil Neemrana District Alwar.

----Respondents-Defendants

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, Advocate for

Mr. Ashvin Garg, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Judgment

26/05/2022

This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the

appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘plaintiff’) under Order 43 Rule (1)(a)

CPC against the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the trial court

whereby the plaint filed by the plaintiff has been returned under

Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presenting the same in competent court.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the

plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and demolition of

construction against the respondents-defendants (for short, ‘the

defendants’) in relation to an ancestral haveli, valuation of which

was more than Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, the trial court had the

(2 of 3)

[CMA-1031/2022]

pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit but the learned trial court

committed an error while suo-moto returning the plaint, hence,

the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Heard. Considered.

The trial court while returning the plaint observed as

under:

^^/kkjk 26¼d½ esa oknh }kjk Lo;a dk oknxzLr lEifRr ij VkbZVy

izR;k[kkr gksus ij oknh lEifRr ds cktkj ewY; ij vkrs ;k 300@&

ij r; fd;k tk,xk] tcfd /kkjk 26¼x½ ds vuqlkj vU; ekeyksa esa

pkgs okn ds fo"k; dh oLrq dk dksbZ cktkj ewY; gS ;k ugha Qhl dh

jde dh x.kuk ml jde ij ftl ij pkgs x;s vuqrks"k dk ewY;kadu

okn i= esa fd;k x;k gS ;k 400@& : tks Hkh vf/kd gs fd;k

tk,xkA bl izdkj /kkjk 26 ds vuqlkj tgka oknh dk VkbZVy

izR;k[kkr ugha fd;k x;k gS ogka lEifRRk dk cktkj ewY; lqlaxr ugh

gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa oknh }kjk oknxzLr lEifRr dk ewY; 05

yk[k :i;s ls vf/kd crk;k x;k gS] pwafd oknh dk oknxzLr lEifRr

esa vius fgLls ds laca/k esa fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gSA ,slh

fLFkfr esa ;gka oknxzLr lEifRr dk cktkj ewY; lqlaxr ugha jg tkrk

gSA^^

From the material placed on record, it transpires that

the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and demolition of

construction against the defendants. The suit for permanent

injunction was valued at Rs.400/-, of which Court fee was paid Rs.

50/- and suit for demolition of construction was valued at

Rs.800/-, of which Court fee was paid Rs.100/-. Thus, total

valuation of the suit was Rs.1200/-, for which the ADJ Court had

no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

I am of the considered view that when the plaintiff

sought the relief of permanent injunction and paid the Court fees

accordingly, market value of the suit property was immaterial.

Thus, the learned trial court in view of the provisions of Order 7

(3 of 3)

[CMA-1031/2022]

Rule 10 CPC has rightly returned the plaint filed by the plaintiff for

its presentation before the competent court.

The findings arrived at by the trial court in its order

dated 13.4.2022 are just and proper, with which I fully concur.

For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this appeal

and the same being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed,

which stands dismissed accordingly.

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

DK/6