JYOTI @ HEERA Vs. OMWATI @ SATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff/ petitioner before this Court, instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction being Original Suit No. 719 of 2010 and looking to the suit property and the relief claimed, the valuation declared was Rs.50.00 lacs. In the said suit the defendant/ respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement as well as counter claim to which the valuation was declared at Rs.16.00 lacs. There was never a dispute raised regarding valuation of the suit as well as the counter claim.

(3.) By common judgment and decree dtd. 26/11/2018 the trial court while dismissing the suit, decreed the counter claim of the defendant/ respondent nos. 1 and 2. Resultantly, petitioner preferred a first appeal before the High Court against the judgment dismissing his suit on the ground that valuation being Rs.50.00 lacs, it executed the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of District Judge which being only Rs.25.00 lacs. First Appeal came to be registered as First Appeal No. 157 of 2019. In so far as the decree of the counter claim is concerned, the plaintiff/ petitioner preferred a first appeal before the District Judge. The defendant/ respondent nos. 1 and 2 took an objection as to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that for the purposes of jurisdiction it is the valuation of the suit which will matter and therefore, the appeal would lie before the High Court and not before the District Judge. This objection was upheld by the District Judge, Bareilly under his order dtd. 13/3/2020 holding the appeal to be not maintainable in the court of District Judge on account of pecuniary limit of Rs.25.00 lacs to exercise the jurisdiction. Thus, the Misc. Case No. 54 of 2020 was disposed of. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court.