Y VENKATA SESHA REDDY Vs. CHEMBETI KOUSALYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India, on a reference made by the learned Single Judge, the question which has been referred to, for decision on the importance of the question involved, is, whether Section 16 of the A. P. Civil courts Act, 1972 is relevant to be taken into consideration or whether the relevant provisions governing the A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 to be taken into consideration for the purpose of entertaining a suit?

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts, as referred to by the learned Single Judge, are that the petitioner, who is the defendant, sought to assail the orders passed in an Interlocutory application in LA. No. 691 of 2007 in O. S. No. 142 of 2007, dated 8. 5. 2007, on the file of the Ill-Additional Junior Civil Judge, nellore, dismissing the application filed by him purported to be under Order VII rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a direction to return the plaint in the said suit on the ground that the pecuniary jurisdiction as mentioned in the plaint shows rs. 1,72,000/- and therefore, the Court of ill-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore has no jurisdiction to entertain the same having regard to the provision under Section 16 of the A. P. Civil Courts Act, 1972. Further it was contended that the valuation as taken for payment of Court fee under Section 24 (b)of the A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation act, 1956 has no concern with the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.

(3.) THE reference order refers to the decisions, placed reliance on, in Gunna venkataratnam v. Gunna Kesava Rao, 1991 (1) APLJ 485, and Syed Saleema bee v. Smt. Syed Noor Jahan and another, 2006 (2) ALD 721 = 2006 (2) ALT 637. Taking note of the submissions on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff in pressing into service the provisions of Section 24 of the A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, on the basis of which, half of the market value was taken, which itself would constitute as a base to determine the jurisdiction of the Court, reference was made to the decision in Workman of Pan american World Airways, K. Ramachandran v. Management of M/s. Pan American world Airways and another, AIR 1987 sc 2084.