PRADIP KUMAR DEY Vs. NIRMAL KUMAR SANTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in T.S. 195/94 has challenged the legality, validity and the propriety of the order passed by the 7th Asstt. District Judge at Alipur rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for returning the plaint for proper presentation in the court having competent jurisdiction.

(2.) The plaintiff/opposite party has filed a suit against the present petitioner/defendant for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement and for means profits/damages. It is stated that the petitioner is a tenant under the opposite party in respect of the suit premises i.e., one asbestos shed room, one tile shed verandah used as kitchen, bath and privy in the ground floor of premises No.8/6A Sisir Bagan Road, Behala, Calcutta at a monthly rental of Rs. 250/- payable according to English Calendar month. Since the defendant did pay arrears of rent the opposite party/plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment and of mesne profits/damages from the petitioner. The suit was valued at Rs. 30,010/- for one year's rental as well as for damages. The petitioner has filed an application before the learned trial court under order 7 Rule 7 CPC for return of the plaint for proper presentation in the court having competent jurisdiction but the said application did not find favour by the learned trial court and accordingly, rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Thus the defendant/ petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has preferred this revision.

(3.) Mr. Ghosal learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has arbitrarily valued the suit by pulling the astronomical figures in the plaint to bring in the jurisdiction of the Assistant District Judge. He has further contended that the rental of the year has been fixed at Rs. 3,000/- whereas the means profits/damages have been valued at Rs. 27,010/- that has been calculated just to confer jurisdiction on the Assistant District Judge. It is argued that previous to filing of this suit the plaintiff/opposite party had issued a registered notice whereunder he had claimed Rs. 10/- Per diam, but how and under what circumstance he could value the suit claiming damages/mesne profits for Rs. 20,010/- in the pleadings. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance the learned Assistant District Judge should have embarked upon an enquiry to find out as to what would be the real valuation of the suit. It is contended that the learned trial Judge without making any enquiry relating to valuation of the suit has spurned the prayer of the petitioner directing him to file such application at the time of hearing of the suit. Since the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is involved it ought to have been the primary duty of the court below for making an enquiry relating to pecuniary jurisdiction and in case it is found that the court before whom the suit is lodged has jurisdiction, it could have proceeded with further hearing of the suit and on the contrary if it is held that the plaintiff has without any basis has fixed the valuation just to bring in within jurisdiction of the Assistant District Judge, then it ought to have returned the plaint for presentation in appropriate court.