1 wp-1662-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1662 of 2011 Pramod Shivajirao Deshmukh .. Petitioner Versus Vimalabai Dattatray Harikmahale & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sandip Shinde for the Petitioner Mr. Girish Agarwal for the Respondent No.1 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 1st DECEMBER, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 22-10-2010 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, J. D. Dindori, by which Order, the Trial Court has held that the said Court would have jurisdiction and however has directed the Plaintiffs to correct the valuation of the suit at Rs. 33,840/- for the purpose of Court fees and pay the deficit Court fees of Rs.4,915/-. 3 Shorn of unnecessary facts, a few facts can be stated thus: The Respondent No.1-Plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No.57 of 2008 for specific performance of the contract and for a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 8-5-2009 as well as the mutation entry No.6074 are 2 wp-1662-11 illegal and that the same are not binding on her. The Defendant No.4 i.e the present Petitioner has filed an application stating that the said suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction. It was his contention that the second relief sought by way of declaration of the Sale Deed dated 8-5-2009 being illegal ought to be valued on the basis of the consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed, which is Rs.2,50,000/-. The Plaintiff ought to have valued the suit accordingly and paid the Court fees for the said two reliefs, and if the said suit is so valued the Learned Civil Judge Junior Division would have no jurisdiction and the plaint would have to be returned back to the Plaintiff for being filed in the Court of Learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Dindori. 4 The Learned Judge as can be seen from paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the impugned order after accepting the fact that the consideration for the sale Deed was Rs.2,50,000/-, and the suit ought to be valued on the said basis, however, on the basis of the provisions of section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 held that for the relief mentioned in Section 6 (ha) (iv) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, the valuation for the purposes of court Fees and the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction has to be the same, and, therefore, held that the said Court would have jurisdiction and in the said circumstances held that the subject matter of the present suit is not overvalued i.e. excess of Rs.1,00,000/- and the suit would therefore be maintainable in the said Court. 3 wp-1662-11 5 A reading of the said Order discloses that the Learned Judge has proceeded on the basis of the Court fees payable rather than the valuation of the reliefs sought, and therefore, has erroneously come to a conclusion that the said valuation of the suit cannot be more than Rs.1,00,000/-. In my view, the Learned Judge has proceeded on erroneous basis of taking into consideration the Court fees payable on the basis of valuation rather than the valuation which in the instant case was to be on the basis of the reliefs sought which undoubtedly was the setting aside of the Sale Deed dated 8-5-2009, consideration for which was Rs.2,50,000/-. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 22-10-2010 would have to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside and the valuation for the purposes of the jurisdiction and Court fees would be as per the earlier valuation plus Rs.2,50,000/-, on such valuation the suit would then go out of the purview of the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division. The Plaintiffs would have to accordingly pay the deficit court fees and the plaint would have to be returned to the Plaintiffs for being presented to the proper Court. 6 The Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with the parties to bear their respective costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)