T SHIVLAL Vs. BALARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point raised in the revision petition is whether cross-objection can be preferred in a C.M.A. filed under the Order 43, Rule 1 (a) C.P.C. The lower appellate court held that cross-objections cannot be preferred in such an appeal and rejected the memorandum of cross-objections filed in C.M.A. No. 131 of 1973.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cross-objections, a few facts are necessary to be stated. The petitioners are the defendants. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioners-defendants. They valued the suit land at Re. 1 per square yard. The defendants took objection to that valuation in their written statement and stated that the market value of the suit land is Rs. 30 per square yard.

(3.) The trial Court, i.e., the 2nd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, framed issue No. 4, viz., 'whether the court-fee paid is not sufficient and whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?' The trial Court first took up this issue and recorded the evidence and came to the conclusion that the suit property has to be valued at the rate of Rs. 10 per square yard and if this value is adopted, the Court has no jurisdiction and the court-fee paid is not sufficient. In view of the matter, the 2nd Assistant Judge, by his order dated 16/07/1973 returned the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. for presentation before the proper Court. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by this order, preferred C.M.A. No. 131 of 1973 in the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In that C.M.A. the defendants filed cross-objection S.R No. 9910/73. In the cross-objection, the valuation as fixed by the 2nd Assistant Judge and consequently the sufficiency of the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs were attacked on the ground that the fixation of the value of the suit property at Rs. 10 by the Assistant Judge was not correct and it must be at the rate of Rs. 30 per square yard. At the S.R. stage, the office took up the objection that the cross-objections are not maintainable. Therefore, the appellate Court by the order dated 19/10/1973, agreed with the office objection and rejected the cross-objections. The ground stated in the order was that the appeal was filed under Order 43, Rule 1 (a) C.P.C. The appeals preferred under Order 43 C.P.C. are independent of the appeals preferred under Order 41, C.P.C. and therefore the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22, C.P.C. are not applicable to the appeals filed under Order 43, C.P.C.