BENUDHAR JENA Vs. PRABIR CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three revisions arise out of three suits for identical relief against the defendant who is the petitioner in the three Civil Revisions. The cause of action arose on account of the breach of an agreement dt. 23-3-1959 whereunder the monthly remuneration received by defendant as Managing Director was to be divided into four equal shares and distributed among the four executants of the agreement. It is alleged by the plaintiff in each case that after March, 1962, the defendant did not distribute the remunerations as agreed. Hence the three suits were filed for accounts. Defendant in his written statement in each suit challenged the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Munsif and also the sufficiency of the court-fee payable.

(2.) After the issues were framed, defendant applied for deciding the issue of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Munsif as a preliminary issue. Plaintiffs raised objection of the ground that the issue is a mixed question of fact and law and should not be tried piecemeal.

(3.) The learned Munsif in whose Court the suits were filed being valued at Rs. 1000/-each allowed the prayer. No evidence was led and the issue was tried on the basis of the assertions made in the pleadings only. Relying upon the decision reported in ILR (1973) Cut 1336 (Mitra Shipping Agency v. Orissa Fisheries Development Corporation Limited, Tulsipur, Cuttack), the learned Munsif held that under S.7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act (Act VII of 1870) (hereinafter stated the 'Act') a plaintiff has right to give his own valuation and answered the issue against the defendant. Defendant challenged the orders in the three suits in Civil Revision Nos. 581, 582 and 583 of 1979. This Court directed transfer of the suits to the Court of the Subordinate Judge who was also given direction to re-examine whether the plaintiffs were obliged to raise the valuation and pay appropriate court-fee in the light of the law applicable. The Civil Revisions were thus disposed of. After the suits were transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, the preliminary issue was heard again and was answered on the basis of the assertions made in the pleadings only. The trial court found that the valuation given by the plaintiffs was reasonable. The defendant has preferred the present Civil Revisions against the aforesaid orders of the learned Subordinate Judge in the three suits.