OM PRAKASH LATH Vs. RAJ KUMAR LATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 17/9/2018 passed in Title Suit No.34 of 2016 by the learned Munsif, Sadar, Purnea whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners for framing a preliminary issue and deciding the same with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial court has been rejected.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that the respondent no.1 filed Title Suit No.34 of 2016 in the court of learned Munsif, Sadar, Purnea for declaration of the title over the suit land as described in Schedule A of the plaint. The defendants/petitioners appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement denying the contention and claim of the plaintiff/respondent no.1, claiming that the suit property was worth several crores and the plaintiff undervalued it showing its value at Rs.25,000.00only, as such, the petitioner no.1 filed a petition on 28/6/2017 before the learned trial court for framing a preliminary issue regarding suit not being properly valued and challenging the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial court to decide the suit land. The respondent no.1 filed rejoinder to the said petition on 4/9/2017 denying the contention of the petitioner no.1. The learned trial court vide its order dtd. 17/9/2018 rejected the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order dtd. 17/9/2018, the petitioners have come before this Court challenging the aforesaid order.

(3.) Mr. J.S. Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned trial court while passing the impugned order completely ignored the ambit and scope of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The learned trial court while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate that even an issue, which involves mixed question of law and fact can be framed and decided as preliminary issue, when the same goes to the root of the matter, i.e., the jurisdiction of the court in question to try the same. Mr. Arora further submitted that the petitioners in support of their contention have produced the chart for the financial year 2016-17 for Kasba Nagar Panchayat with regard to maximum valuation for registration fixed by the government, but the same was not considered by the learned trial court. If the learned trial court would have considered the same, it could have easily come to the conclusion that the valuation of the suit would run in crores and not in thousands. Mr. Arora further submitted that reliance placed by the learned trial court on the decision of this Court dtd. 27/4/2016 passed in CWJC No.10622 of 2015 (Most. Girija Devi vs. Ratneshwar Rai) is misplaced as the said order has been passed in personem and it was not in rem. Mr. Arora further relied on the decision of Full Bench in the case of Md. Alam and etc. Vs. Gopal Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 Pat 156 (FB) wherein it has been held that the estimation of relief by the plaintiff has to be ordinarily accepted and interference therein is permissible only in exceptional and rare cases where such valuation is patently arbitrary and demonstrably undervalued and underestimated deliberately. Mr. Arora next stressed the point that the procedural laws are handmaids of justice and have been made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Therefore, Order 14 Rule 2 does not bar framing of preliminary issue if suit has been grossly undervalued. On the scope and ambit of procedural law, Mr. Arora relied on paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sathyanath and anr. v. Sarojamani reported in (2022) 7 SCC 644 which read as under :