SWATI SATISH KELSHIKAR Vs. SHANKAR KUDDU SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Applicant has approached this Court against the Order dated 25th August 1995 passed in Bombay City Civil Court S.C.Suit No.3410 of 1995. By the said order the trial Court disposed of the issue framed in para 5 of the order. It was a composite issue consisting of two issues viz.

(2.) IN so far as the ouster of jurisdiction by virtue of Sections 71 and 177 of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act is concerned, the reliefs herein prayed are by the Applicant against the Respondent No.1. Admittedly, the Respondent No.1 was allotted the premises by Respondent No.2. The suit filed by the Plaintiff is for declaration that the agreement arrived at between him and the Applicant is null and void and for various injunction. In such a suit Respondent No.2 is not a necessary party. In fact no relief is available against Respondent No.2 to question the ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court. The Civil Court has jurisdiction under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide and dispose of all suits of a civil nature except those which are expressly barred by any other law. In the present case the relief claimed by the Applicant and the Respondent is for possession in respect of which remedy is provided for under the Act and consequently it can not be said that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the subject matter of the Suit. The trial Court was therefore right in so far as holding that the suit is not barred on that count.

(3.) THERE is no material before the Court today to find out as to exactly what is the value of the suit in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction. The jurisdiction as of today is based on relief of declaration and injunction. Once the Respondent No.1 files a suit against the Applicant on the ground that the agreement arrived between him and the Applicant is null and void and plaintiff is not in possession then the suit has to fall under some other entry other than 6(iv)(j). If recovery of possession is sought whether styled as mandatory injunction or otherwise then also the valuation has to be done and court fees have to be paid on such valuation. The trial Court has not addressed itself on this aspect of the matter. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the trial Court for a consideration afresh. The trial Court to decide whether the suit has been properly valued or not and if not properly valued then to direct the Respondent No.1 to value the suit properly for the purpose of suit valuation and then pay requisite court fees in terms of the provisions of the Suit Valuation Act and the Court Fees Act respectively.