HARIPADA ROY Vs. RASHBEHARY MALLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal is directed against order No. 31 dated 19th August, 1966 passed by the chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, whereby the plaint was directed to be returned to the filing lawyer for presentation to the proper court on holding that the suit has not been properly valued and the valuation of the relevant claim in the suit both for the purpose of jurisdiction and for court fees exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court and as such the suit is not triable by the court. The plaintiffs instituted the suit claiming relief for declaration of their right, title and interest and ownership in respect of the suit property which comprises of a portion of the land and structure of premises No. 76/1, Baghbazar Street, Calcutta, measuring about 233 x 156 yards i. e. 46 cottahs and also for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for other reliefs. The suit was valued at Rs. 10/-as it has been stated that there was no objective standard of valuation of the claims of the plaintiffs. The defendant-respondent filed a written statement and in paragraph 3 of the written statement it has been pleaded that the court has no jurisdiction to try this suit. In paragraph 14 of the written statement the defendant also stated that the suit had not been properly valued and according to the averments made in the plaint the area of the land in suit as appeared in the schedule being 233 x 156 yards the value would be more than Rs. 20,000/-and the court wherein the plaint had been filed had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On this pleading on 18th November, 1965 by order No. 14 the court below framed certain issues. The issue no. 2 is as follows : -"has this court jurisdiction to try this suit?"

(2.) THE court on August 19, 1966 took up the issue regarding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue for hearing and it appears that by the said order No. 31 the court having found that the issue regarding the jurisdiction was not properly framed, framed an additional issue to the effect -"has this suit been properly valued and has this court jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit?" inspite of the objection filed by the plaintiffs that the hearing of the said issue as a preliminary issue be adjourned to a later date in order to unable the plaintiffs to adduce evidences as to the question of valuation, the Court did not grant that prayer, but allowed the plaintiffs' lawyer to advance his argument in course of the day. However, the plaintiffs' lawyer did not make any argument on that day. The learned Chief judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, after hearing the learned Advocates for the defendant and also on a consideration of the land acquisition award granted by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the premises No. 76/1, Bag Bazar street, Calcutta found that the valua-tion of the property was more than rupees four lakhs and as such it was beyond the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. After holding that, the learned Chief Judge directed the plaint to be returned to the filing lawyer for presentation to the proper forum.

(3.) AGAINST this judgment and order the instant appear has been preferred before this Court.