WALAITI RAM Vs. KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is The plaintiff in a suit which he filed for accounts against the defendant. He has stated in the plaint that on taking of accounts nearly Rs. 2 lakhs might be due to him. The suit was valued for the purpose of court fee at Rs. 200.00. According to Order 7 rule 1 (i) Civil Procedure Code the plaintiff had to make a statement of the value of the subject matter of the suit for The purpose of jurisdiction and of court fee, so far as the case admits. The plaint, as it was originally filed, was silent on the question of valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction. By order dated 19-1-74 the learned Subordinate Judge Shri Ravi Kumar referred to the judgment of Prithvi Raj, J. in Daljit Singh v. Bishamber Dayal where the learned Judge had held that ir. a suit for dissolution of partnership &nd accounts, the plaintiff has to value his suit approximately at the sum, for which he seeks the relief and that he cculd not fix a fanciful and whimsical valuation for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. After indicating the legal position, according to the above decision, the learned trial Judge ordered the plaintiff to value the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction approximately at the sum for which he seeks relief and for that purpose to file an amended plaint. It may be noticed that whatever the views expressed by (he learned Judge at that time were based on the judgement of Prithvi Raj, J., all that he could have directed the plaintiff was to state the value for the purpose of jurisdiction : this was a value which had to be given by the plaintiff and no specified value could be directed by the Court. The further question would then arise, as it did arise before the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Sheila Devi v. Kishan lal (1974 Rajdbani L.R. (N) 76) whether such valuation given by the plaintiff could be interfered with by the Court in such a suit. My Lord the Chief Justice T.V.R. Tatachari, who spoke for the Full Bench, observed that the Court had no power to interfere with sich valuation for it was for the plaintiff to make such valuation in such suit. Even the plaintiff seems to have been under the impression that against the order dated 19-1-1974 he had to file a revision to the High Court as one could see from the plaintiff's representation subsequently made to the Court. Thereupon beseems to have filed an application for review under order 47 rule 1 Civil Procedure Code which was dismissed on the ground, properly, that the fact that the law was subsequently decided in a different manner (than what obtained at the time of the original decision) could not be a ground (or review.

(2.) Despite these happenings what seems to be more important for the present purpose is the later order which was passed by the same learced trial Judge on 30-9-74, which reads as follows : The plaintiff was ordered to file the amended plaint valuing the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction approximately with the sum for which he seeks relief but the plaintiff has not valued the suit as ordered. Only amened plaint has been filed by him. The plaintiff is, therefore, ordered to show cause, if any, why the plaint be not i ejected under order 7 C.P.C. by 15.10.1974."

(3.) The facts narrated so far would go to show that despite the impression of the plaintiff that he had to get the earlier order of 19.1 1974 set aside by filing a revision (or even by filing a review application) hs is seen to be really aggrieved by tile order which was passed on 30 9-1974 wherein the learned trial Judge held that the amended Plaint was not is accordance with the earlier order dated 19.1.197 Even this order was pissed 01 30 9-1974 itself. The proper order to pass, when the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction, is not to "reject" the plaint; the court has only to "return" the plaint for presentation to the proper court. No such order had been passed. In a sense, therefore, the plaintiff could even wait until such further order is passed (either of "rejection" wrongly or of "returning" the plaint, which is the kind of the order that has to be passed) for the purpose of filing a revision. In this view of the matter it would not be proper to hold that there was any finality attaching to the order dated 19.1.1974 by reason of no revision having been filed as against it.