RAJENDRA DINANATH PATIL Vs. USMAN SAJJAN PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by defendant No. 4 takes exception to the finding recorded by a Judge of the City Civil Court vis-a-vis the preliminary issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1- the plaintiff - has claimed possession of site measuring 23 x 13 described in para 1 of the plaint, injunctions - prohibitory and mandatory- as at prayer clauses (e) and (f) and a decretal direction for ascertainment of pendente-lite and future mesne profits at Rs. 1000/- per month. The valuation clause being para 19 of the plaint recites that the subject matter of the suit is valued at Rs. 10,500/- being 100 times the monthly rent i. e. Rs. 105/- per month payable by plaintiff to the Bombay Municipal Corporation (defendant No. 3 ). Defendant No. 4 questioned the valuation contending that plaintiff had to value the suit site according to its market price and that if it was so valued, the City Civil Court where the suit had been instituted, would have no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) THE Judge whose finding questioned feels that the plaintiff has been generous both in the matter of the suits valuation and the Court fee paid. According to him the claim in suit fell within the terms of clause (f) of section 6 (xii) and not section 6 (v) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Act ). The plaint-as do most of the plaints in Bombay- ignores the legal requirement incorporated in sub-rule (i) of Rule 1 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC ). This rule to the extent relevant together with the sub-rule lays it down that:--