HARSHVARDHAN SHARMA Vs. ABHISHEK GAURAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant revision, the applicants are challenging the legality and validity of the order dtd. 7/12/2024 passed by the learned Additional Judge Pamgarh to the Court of First Civil Judge Senior Division Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2018, whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected an application U/o 7 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code R/w Sec. 151 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the applicants, holding that the plaintiffs are not party in the sale deed dtd. 16/12/2022 therefore it appears that they have rightly valued the suit. The Trial Court has passed the impugned order ignoring that for the purposes of jurisdiction the valuation has to be done as per the value of the document on which the relief has been sought. The plaintiffs have sought the relief that the sale deed dtd. 16/12/2022 is not binding upon them, therefore, they have to value the suit according to the value of the document/sale deed and in case of proper valuation the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court but ignoring the same the impugned order has been passed which is illegal, improper and contrary to the law. Hence, the instant Civil Revision.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the plaintiffs have wrongly valued the suit while ignoring the value of the document, i.e., the sale deed of Rs.17,74,500.00 for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. Even if the plaintiffs are not party to the said sale deed for the proper valuation of the suit regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit has to be valued properly which has not been done. The Trial Court did not consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has illegally rejected the same stating that the suit has properly been valued as per Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Suits Valuation Act and as such this revision has been filed. If the suit would be properly valued, it would be beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the concerned Trial Court where the matter is being tried.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the suit has been properly valued and for deciding application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC only plaint averments are required to be seen. The objection raised by the defendants either in the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC or in the written statement is not required to be seen while deciding application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. It is between the Court and the plaintiffs. The defendants cannot object the same.