SUBIMAL KANTI PAUL Vs. PARIMAL PAUL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Re: FMAT 1074 of 2012

(2.) TWO first miscellaneous appeals were filed by two different parties challenging a common order passed by the Learned Trial Judge on 3rd August, 2012 Order No. 7 in T.S. No. 929 of 2012. One of such appeals was filed by the plaintiff/appellant. The other appeal which was filed by the defendants is registered as FMAT 1035 of 2012. Both the aforesaid appeals were heard by us simultaneously.

(3.) BY a common order passed by the Learned Trial Judge, two different applications filed by two different groups of respondents were disposed of. By the said order, the Learned Trial Judge was also pleased to extend the ad -interim order of injunction for a limited period. The defendant No. 2 filed an application praying for return of the plaint to the plaintiff as according to him, the Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain or try the said suit. It was contended by the defendant that since the valuation of the suit property is Rs. 46,83,295/ -, the plaintiff ought to have valued the reliefs claimed in the suit at Rs. 46,83,295/ -. It was further contended therein that since the City Civil Court at Calcutta did not have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit where the valuation of the suit exceeds Rs. 10 lac, the Learned Trial Judge was required to return the plaint to the plaintiff for filing the same to the competent court which has both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain such suit. The said application of the defendant No. 2 was allowed by the Learned Trial Judge.