BADRILAL Vs. VERSUS SUNIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals Nos. 572/94, 598/94, 668/94 and S.B. Civil Revision No. 1224/94 arise out of same suit and between the same parties and involve common quesitons of law and facts and, therefore, for convenience they are decided jointly.

(2.) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 572/94 is directed against the order dated 24-10-1994 passed by District Judge, Udaipur on an application filed by the respondent u/s 15 C.P.C. read with Sections 10 and 49 of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby the trial court allowed the application filed by the respondents-defendants and directed the suit to be returned to the plaintiffs-appellants for presentation to a proper court on the ground that the suit was not properly valued. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 598/94 is also directed against the order dated 24-10-1994 whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs-appellants seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 2 C.P.C. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 668/94 is directed against the order dated 21-11-1994 passed by the trial court whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs- appellants seeking appointment of Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Order 39 Rule 7 C.P.C. S.B. Civil Revision No. 1224/94 is directed against the order dated 21-11-1994 whereby the trial court instead of proceeding with the suit in compliance of ad-interim stay order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Stay Petition No. 334/97 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 572/94 consigned the file to the record.

(3.) Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant for decision of these appeals and revision are that the appellants-plaintiffs filed Civil Original Suit No. 94/94 for permanent injunction before the learned trial court. The suit was vauled at Rs. 51.000/- and accordingly, the court-fee of Rs. 2740/- was paid by the appellants. The trial court prima facie came to the conclusion that the cause of action to the appellants-plaintiffs arose and the property in dispute is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The trial court further came to the conclusion that it is vested with the pecuniary jurisdiction as the valuation of the suit is above Rs. 50,000/-. Summonses for settlement of issues were issued to the respondent-defendants. The respondent-defendants instead of filing written statement, filed an application u/s 15 C.P.C. read with Sections 10 and 49 of the Act and requested the trial court that the suit valued by the plaintiff appellants should be filed before a court of lowest grade competent to try it. It was also alleged that the valuation of the suit determined by the plaintiffs is excessive and, therefore, the defendant-respondents prayed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff-appellants to file in the courts of lowest grade. By the order impugned dated 24-10-1994, the trial court allowed the application filed by the defendant-respondents and directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff-appellants to be presented in the proper court in the lowest grade. In the same sequence, the trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-appellants under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction as also an application for appointment of Commission under Order 26 Rule 9 and Order 39 Rule 7 C.P.C. The order impugned dated 24-10-1994 was challenged by the plaintiff-appellants before this Court. On 16-11-1994, the appeal filed by the appellants was admitted by this Court and the operation of the order directing return of the plaint, was stayed. The plaintiff-appellants filed an application before the trial court that the operation of the order directing return of the plaint has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court and, therefore, the trial court should proceed with the suit as well as the application filed by the plaintiff-appellants under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 39 Rule 7 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction. Instead of proceeding with the suit and the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., the trial court consigned the file to the record. The order dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was challenged before this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2598/ 94, which was admitted by this Court. Vide order dated 25-11-1994, this Court passed the following order :- "In the meanwhile the non-petitioners are restrained from putting up any further construction in the disputed lane and from interferring with the- petitioners user of the disputed lane till the disposal of the said application. The parites shall maintain status-quo as regards the construction in the disputed lane as it stands today. List the case for hearing on 21st Dec. 1994 alongwith Civil Misc. Appeal No. 572/94 and if in the meanwhile the revision against order dated 21-11-1994 in Suit No. 94/94 is filed that also shall be heard together in this case."