BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Vs. GOKULA BIHARI MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the valuation fixed for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fees by the Court in which the plaint was pre-sented, is final and binding between the par-ties, and whether the defendant/defendants has/have any rights or locus standi to dis-pute such valuation are the questions that I arise for consideration in the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner, who is defendant No. 5 in the Court below, proceeds on the premises that the valuation so fixed is not final and the defendant has right to question the same when such valuation involves also the ques-tion of jurisdiction. Opposite Party No. 1, who is the plaintiff in the Court below, on the other hand, proceeds on the premises that the valuation so fixed in view of Section 12 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 ('Act' for short) is final and a defendant in any event has no locus standi to challenge the same.

(3.) The present opposite party No. 1 is the plaintiff in the Court below. The defendants, who are pro forma opposite parties 2 to 5 in this writ petition, and the present petitioner (defendant No. 5 in the Court below) are ten-ants and sub-lessees in the suit premises. Ini-tially the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 filed the suit for permanent injunction. Later on he sought for the relief of recovery of pos-session by way of amendment of the plaint. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), First Court, Cuttack (learned court below' for short) ejected the petition for amendment vide order dated 05-11 -2005. That order was challenged before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3154 of 2006. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with the following observa-tion :-