NITYANANDA PANDEY Vs. MANOHAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF-OPPOSITE party No. 1 filed a Title Suit asking for recovery of possession of certain lands and mesne profits of Rs. 920 during the pendency of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the lands were attached and placed in charge of a receiver. He valued the relief for recovery of possession at Rs. 142. 65 on the basis of fifteen times of the annual revenue under Section 7 (v) of the Court-fees Act. Defendants did not dispute the calculation of the court-fees payable on the plaint, but challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit by contending that the market value of the lands was more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif. On this plea, Issue No. 9 was raised to the effect:--"whether the court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?" the learned Additional Munsif held, relying on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gopala Padhano v. Ganesh Padhy, 1lr (1963) Cut 13 = (AIR 19,64 Orissa 27) that the suit was -within the trial Judge's pecuniary jurisdiction. Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 have filed this revision application challenging the correctness of the determination of the preliminary issue.

(2.) WHEN the Revision application was placed for hearing before a learned Single judge, he directed the matter to be heard by a Division Bench in view of the contention raised before him that the observation in the case reported in ILR (1963) Cut 13 = (AIR 1964 Orissa 27) that the repeal of the Madras Civil Courts act does not affect the applicability of Section 14 thereof to south Orissa by virtue of Section 6 of the Suits Valuation Act requires re-consideration, because to areas included in the Koraput District, the principle has no application. That is how the revision application with a connected matter is before us.

(3.) SECTIONS 3, 6 and 8 of the Suits Valuation Act which are material may now be extracted:-