Kanhaiya vs Gangaram And Ors

This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 19.02.2020 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 10

read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

Facts in brief are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to adoption of the defendant No.1-

Kanhaiya. It was stated in para 9 of the plaint that for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and assessment of Court fee,

the market value of the property in question was assessed more than Rs.10,000/- and fixed Court fee of Rs.500/- was paid.

The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC stating therein that once the plaintiff himself has assessed the

valuation of the suit as more than Rs.10,000/-, the suit should have been filed in the Court of lowest competent jurisdiction instead of the Court of

District Judge and hence, the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the proper Court. The application has been dismissed by the

learned trial Court vide order impugned herein.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that for a suit having valuation of Rs.10,000/-, the Court of Civil Judge is the Court of competent

jurisdiction, hence, the learned trial Court erred in dismissing his application. Drawing attention of this Court towards Section 25 of the Rajasthan Court

Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for short ""the Act of 1961"") as well as Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it was canvassed by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 19.02.2020 suffers from the error and deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of Hans Raj & Ors. versus

Prakash Chand & Ors. reported in 2001 (1) CLJ (H.P.) 10 to buttress his submissions.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Section 25 of the Act of 1961 reads as under:- ""Sec.25. Adoption suits.- In a suit for a declaration in regard to the validity or invalidity of an adoption

or the factum of an adoption, fee shall be payable at the following rates :-

Where the market-value of the property involved in or affected by the relief-

(i) is rupees five thousand or less, Rupees fifty;

(ii) exceeds rupees five thousand but does not exceed rupees then thousand, Rupees one hundred;

(iii) exceeds rupees ten thousand, Rupees five hundred.

From a perusal of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act of 1961, it is apparent that three categories of the suits have been prescribed therein for the

purpose of valuation of the suits and where market value of the property exceeds Rs.10,000/-, fixed Court fee of Rs.500/- is leviable. In pare 9 of the

plaint, the plaintiff has specifically stated the market value of the property to be more than Rs.10,000/- and not Rs.10,000/- only. From perusal of the

order impugned, it is reflected that the market value of the land involved in the dispute has been stated to be more than Rs.5,00000/-.A perusal of the

application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC reveals that even the petitioner has not averred that valuation of

the land involved in the dispute was less than Rs.5,00000/-. so as to oust the jurisdiction of the learned District Court.

In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.

The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Hans Raj & Ors. (supra) has no applicability in the facts and

circumstances of the present case. I find no illegality or perversity in the order impugned herein warranting interference of this Court under its

extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.