K GOVINDA REDDY Vs. G DEVASENAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pending the suit, the defendent filed I. A. No. 221 of 1989 in O.S.No.643 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddapah, under Order 14 Rule 2 and Order 15 Rule 3 and Section 151 C.P.C. to try and decide the issue as to "whether the Munsif's Court has got pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit", as a preliminary issue. That application was dismissed. The defendant has now filed the present revision petition.

(2.) To consider the point that has been raised in this revision petitionthe following facts are relevant : The suit was originally filed for passing a decree dissolving the firm M/s. Cuddapah Diagnostic Centre and to direct the detendant to render the accounts. Pending that suit, the plaintiff also filed a petition for directing the defendant to deposit the share of Rs. 450/- per month from 31-2-1981 upto 3-8-1987. The petition was opposed by the defendant. That petition was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court and the plaintiff came forward with another petition I. A. No. 805 of 1988 for the amendment of the prayer in the plaint to restrain defendant from selling the machinery and articles of the firm and for passing a decree of the dissolution of the firm and to direct the defendant to render the accounts. The original relief prayed for in the plaint was amended as per the orders in LA. No. 805 of 1988 dated 12-7-1988. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1111 of 1988 to direct the defendant to deposit the amount of Rs. 24,750/- being the accumulated amount at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month for 4 years and 7 months i.e., from December, 1983. A Commissioner was also appointed and he valued the articles of the Firm at Rs. 2,79,200/-. The plaintiff only valued half of the share in the partnership firm at Rs. 7000/- and paid Court fee. During the course of the hearing of that petition, the defendant has come forward with the present petition to decide the preliminary issue whether the Munsif's Court has got pecuniary jurisdiction After hearing both parties, the learned District Munsif dismissed the petition. The defendant has now filed the present revision petition.

(3.) The counsel for the defendant-petitioner herein contended that sincethe Commissioner appointed by the Court has valued the articles at Rs. 2,79,200/- and an application has been filed for arrears at Rs. 450/- per month to the tune of Rs. 24,750/- the District Munsif's Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.