SATISHCHANDRA KANTILAL SHAH Vs. JAGDISHCHANDRA KANTILAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. M.C. Bhatt, Ld. advocate appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties matter is heard finally today.

(2.) The petitioner-original defendants No. 1 to 6 applied to the trial court by application Exh. 17 purportedly given under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CP Code to reject the suit being Reg. C.S. No. 47/94 on the ground that the suit was undervalued and that the court fees which is payable on the plaint on correct valuation of the properties was not paid. It was also incidentally prayed that since the suit is valued, on proper valuation, the court of Civil Judge (JD) at Vyare will have no jurisdiction and therefore also the plaint should be rejected. The respondent-plaintiff filed his reply at Exh. 22 and after taking into consideration the oral submission as well as written documents and the plaint, the trial court rejected the application by judgment and order dated 18th May, 1994.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the original defendants have preferred this CRA. Mr. B.J. Jadeja, Ld. advocate for petitioners has assailed the order of the trial court on the ground that the decision of the trial court in substance amounts to deciding the question of correct valuation of the plaint and question of jurisdiction of the trial court in fact can be decided only after proper evidence is led at the trial. This type of application can not be decided on oral submission without any evidence whatsoever. On the other hand, Mr. M.C. Bhatt, Ld. advocate for original plaintiff submits that question of court fee is one which can not be raised by a private party in the revisional jurisdiction of this court and it being a matter of concern for the State, this revision application is not maintainable. On merits, he established that application was given by the defendants themselves and when the decision has gone against them, they can not make grievance on the fact that the trial court has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction.