JANAKI SAHU AND ANOTHER Vs. RUSI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the challenge is to the legality of the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sambalpur holding that the plaint was to be returned to the plaintiffs for prosecution before a proper Court.

(2.) We are not very much concerned with the factual aspects. Stated in brief, it is as follows: A suit for partition was Filed by the petitioners. The opposite party was the sole defendant. An issue was framed by the trial Court as to whether the suit was under-valued. The plaintiffs had valued the suit property at Rs. 2600.00and suit being one for partition, a fixed Court fee of Rs. 22.50 was paid. This issue was answered in favour of the plaintiffs and it was held that the suit was valued properly and the Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned trial Judge also observed that no specific challenge was made relating to the jurisdiction of the Court and/or valuation of the,suit at the time of hearing. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) An appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Sambalpur which was taken up for hearing by the learned Addl. District Judge. It appears from the memorandum of appeal, and the impugned judgment that primary challenge was to the entertainment of the suit by the Trial Court, urging that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was patently under-valued. The learned appellate Judge accepting the plea hold that the trial Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and therefore, it should not have proceeded with the trial. Accordingly direction as aforestated was given. Legality of this conclusion is assailed in this appeal.