M P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. KAMALA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision calls in question an order dated 24-2-03 in Civil Suit No. 69-A/2002 passed by learned 9th Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior, rejecting the preliminary objections raised by the applicant/ defendant to the valuation of the suit.

(2.) It is said that the non-applicants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the trial Court and paid a total court-fee of Rs. 240.00 on valuation of the suit. As the question of court-fee pertains to jurisdiction and thus goes to the roots of the matter, the applicant raised certain preliminary objections. It is urged that learned Judge without going into merits of the issue has rejected the plea. Now the judgment is assailed mainly on the ground that the second relief being a prayer for permanent injunction is consequential, therefore, the non-applicants ought to have paid ad valorem court-fee on valuation amount of Rs. 36,000.00. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in the case of Comolata Dutta v. Ishwar Industries Ltd., AIR 1966 MP 169. The relevant portion of the said judgment on reproduction reads as :

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants (plaintiffs in the sutt) submits that they are in possession of the land in question right from 1950 and thus, it is a case of settled possession. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in the case of Sabina alias Farida v. Mohd. Abdul Wasit, (1997) 1 Jab LJ 105. The ratio of the judgment says that: