* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: January 21, 2010 Date of Order: January 29, 2010 +.CM(M) 841/2009 % 29.01.2010 Syed Iqbal Ahmad .Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Kailash Singhal & Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 842/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Rajesh Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No: 39. + CM(M) 843/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Ashok Kumar & Anr. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24, Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respdndent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. +CM(M) 844/2009 % - Syed Iqbal Ahmad ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid :Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Pawan Kumar Jain & Anr. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutdsh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Pagelof 12 - Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. 5. + CM(M) 845/2009 P % Syed Iqbal Ahmad ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Vishal Gupta & Anr. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kümar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 84612009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Rahul Kashyap & Ors.. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. AkhiI Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2in item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 847/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Smt. Veermati Rana & Ors. .. .Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 848/2009 , % Syed Iqbal Ahmad ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Smt. Veermati Rana& Ors. ...Respondents Page 20112 / Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. AkhiI Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P. N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 84912009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad . ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Smt. Premwati & Ors. ..Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13 Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(.M) 850/2009 0/0 Syed Iqbal Ahmad - ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Smt. Vineeta Gupta & Ors. ...Réspondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item :No. 39. + CM(M) 851/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad - ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate. Versus Shri Vinod Aggarwal & Anr. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. -24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No.2 in Item.No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item Np. 39. + CM(M) 852/2009 % . . . Syed Iqbal Ahrnad - ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Nàqvi, Advocate Versus 11 —p I (C Shri Rajesh Rana & Ors.T. 1 . ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 853/2009 0/0 Syed Iqbal Ahmad . Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Mahavir Pd. Gupta ...Respondent Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kurnar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 855/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad . . ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Subhash Aggarwal & Anr. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24.. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr.. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 856/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad . . .Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate • Versus .. . Shri Satpal Maihotra & Ors. . ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. • Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. • Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the • respondent No. 2 in -Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. . + CM(M) 857/2009 - % Syed Iqbal Ahmad . . ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Page 4 Of 12 7 • Smt. Neha Bajaj & Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia,.Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. 17. + CM(M) 858/2009 Syed Iqbal Ahmad • ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate • Versus Smt. Vineeta Gupta & Ors. ... Respondents • Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar; Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. .18. +CM(M)859/2OO9 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad ...Petitioher • Through: Mr.S.M Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Smt. Sangeeta Rana & Ors. • • ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arorä, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 860/2009 % - Syed Iqbal Ahmad ...Petutuoner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Ram Niwas Aggarwal & Anr. • ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. - Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the • respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for. !Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 861/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad .. . Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate PageSOf 12 Versus :. Smt. Sangeeta Rana & Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 862/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Ramesh Agarwal & Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent, in Item No. 24. - Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the • respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. - +CM(M)863/2009• % F Syed Iqbal Ahmad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Rajiv Rana & Ors. ... Respondents Through: Mr. AshutoshLohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. +CM(M) 86412009. % . Syed Iqbal Ahmad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Som Nath ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kurnar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 865/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad ' . ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Page 60f12 Versus Shri ]ai Prakash Rana & Ors. ...Respondents - Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. AkhilMittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No 13. Ms. Sonia Arorá, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. 25. + CM(M) 866/2009 %. Syed Iqbal Ahmad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the . respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. 126. + CM(M) 867/2009 - •% Syed Iqbal Ahmad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus - - ShriVinod Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Ahil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon; Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sofia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. 27. + CM(M) 868/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Pradeep Jain & Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V,K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Soniá Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. Page 7 0f 12 31-1 (0 28. + CM(M) 869/2009 % ,1 Syed Iqbal Ahmad ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kuniar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for. Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. To be referred to the reporter or not? Whether judgment Should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT This order shall dispose of all the above petitions preferred by the petitioner. By the above petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27th April, 2009 passed by learned trial court. Succinctly stating the facts relevant for purpose of deciding the above petitions are that the petitioner herein filed a civil suit before the Court of learned Additional District Judge seeking declaration, possession, permanent and prohibitory, injunction against the respondents who Were in possession of plots of land in Mahendroo Enclave, Delhi. The petitioner staked a claim on the various plcts of lands where respondents had built up their houses and were living, on the ground that the he was the cwner of the land underneath. The petitioner valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction while filing suit before the learned ADJ at Rs.3,05,000/- for a plot of land ad measuring 400 sq yards. When the learned ADJ asked the plaintiff (petitioner herein) as to what was the basis of valuation, the counsel for the Page 8 Of 12 Fl I '1 petitioner told the Court that he had valUed the property at Rs.300 per sq. yards. This was the value written in para 59 of the plaint also. Since the petitioner had given the value of land © Rs.300 per sq yards and the plot was measuring 400 sq yards (The same was the situation in ailsuits filed before learned ADJ), the learned ADJ observed that the total value of the plot would come to Rs.1,20,000/- © Rs.300 per sq. yards and if the relief of declaration, injunctions valued at Rs.200/- each+Rs.130+Rs.130 was also added, the total value would be Rs.1,20,400/-. He, therefore, considered that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits since his jurisdiction was of cases falling above Rs.3 lac. He, therefore, sent the cases to learned District Judge for sending the cases to the Court of Civil Judge for trial. The petitioner herein also filed independent suits before the learned Civil Judge valuing land @ Rs.300/- per sq. yard. Thus all the suits were before the Civil Judge where the petitioner had valued the property at Mahendroo Enclave, Delhi, claiming 'ownership and possession, © Rs.300 per sq. yards. 4. It is not in dispute that since the petitioner has claimed relief of possession, declaration and permanent injunction etc. the suit was to be valued ad valorem on the basis of market value of the property for thepurpOse of jurisdiction and Court: fee. The learned Civil Judge found that the suit has been highly undervalued. The suit was for possession and declaration and the rate, of the land as given by the petitioner at Rs.300 per sq. yards in a prime area of North Delhi falling at G.T. Karnal Road wasl much below the market value. The suit was filed in the year 2007. Learned Civil 1 Judge observed that on the basis of circle rate of the area, the value of land in that, area would be around Rs.20,000/- per sq.. yards and, therefore, the suit was highly' undervalued and he returned the plaint to plaintiff so that the plaintiff may appropriately value the suit for the purpose of, jurisdiction and Court fee and file the same in appropriate court. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of ADJ and took the plea that it was the discretion of the petitioner to value the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and the court fee and the petitioner Page 00f 12 had correctly valued the suit. The otherplea taken by the petitioner was that once the learned ADJ had returned the plaint bn the ground that the Civil Judge has jurisdiction, this decision of learned ADJ became res judicata and the Civil Judge had no right to return the suit. Both these pleas did not find favour with the learned ADJ and the learned ADJ dismissed the appeal observing that the previous order of learned ADJ returning the plaint would not amount to res judicata and the Civil Judg had jurisdiction to determine the issue of court fee and jurisdiction. He also came to conclusion that the learned ,Civil Judge rightly returned the plaint since the plaint was highly undervalued. I - 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned ADJ as well as learned Civil Judge went wrong in considering the market value of the property or the basis of circle rates. It is submitted that the circle rate was not reflective of the true value of the property,. The value, of the land which he claimed has to be determined on the basis of award of Land Acquisition Collector passed in respect to the adjoining land acquired by the Government, while this land of the petitioner was not acquired. He placed a copy of award in respect of adjoining land and stated that his valuation was a correct valuation. 6. SUb-sections of section 7 of The Court Fees. Act contemplate three modes of valuation of subject matter. These are:' (I) market value viz, market value of the property or claim, (ii) subject matter of the suit with no market value, or (iii) estimate by plaintiff or according to amount at which relief sought is valued. There is no doubt that a suit for property qua which the relief of possession and declaration is sought, the valuation, has to be done on the basis of market value of the property on, the date of filing of the suit. The plea of petitioner's counsel that the valuation has to be on the basis of award of the adjoining land is a baseless plea. The award relied upon by the petitioner is in respect of year 1964 valuing the land as on 1964. The award itself shows that the valuation in the. award was as on the date of acquisition Page 10Of 12 i.e. of 1964. Thus, the valuaton of 1964 of the aricultural land of that area cannot be the market value of a plot of landfailing in residential colony inthe year 2007, the possession of which is now sought by the petitioner. Since the petitioner is seeking possession in the year 2007 of a plot of land from the respondent which falls in residential colony and claims ownership over this plot of land (whatever be the basis of his claim) he has to value the suit in accordancewith the market value of land as on date of filing of the suit. The petitioner has placed on record one award in respect of land at Burari, Delhi. This award is 02LAC/N/05-06 wherebythe land was acquired for biodiversity park in the year January 2004. This award filed by the petitioner shows that the land acquired by LAC of Village Burari was a vacant land and it was not a land of residential ôolony. Even this'lnd was acquired © Rs.10,000/- per sq. yards in January, 2004. Even going by this award, which the petitionerhimself relies, * the value of land of 40.0 sq yards of land in the residential colony falling on GT Karnal Road, a known industrial and residential area of North Delhi, would be much more in 2003-04 than Rs.10,000/- per sq yards. The circle rate as determined by the government in the year 2007 was Rs.21,800/- per sq. yards in respect of the land in question i.e. Mahendroo Enclave. The contention of counseF for petitioner that the circle rate was not reflective of the true value is absolutely correct. The circle rate is always much less than the actual prevalent market rates. Even this circle rates wasnot reflective of true value of 2007 in the area as in actuality the market rate in the area was much more than Rs.1 lad per sq yards approximately. The petitioner's valuing of the suit at Rs.300/- per sq yards was unrealistic and the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned ADJ rightly came to conclusion that this valuation was to be rejected. It is settled law that jurisdiction and the Court fee does not depend on the form of pleadings but depends on the real substance of relief claimed. Under'Section 7 (v) of The Court Fees Act, a suit where possession of Page 11 Of 12 land/ house is prayed for, the valuation has to be done as per the market value prevalent at that time. The jurisdiction of the Court is basic concern of the Court, whether or not an objection is raised by the defendant. The Court is supposed to consider jurisdictional and court fee aspect before commencing the trial of a case and ensure that it has jurisdiction to proceed with the case. it is not advisable that the Court should, after holding the entire trial, come to a conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to conduct the trial in the case. In view of my foegoing discussion; I consider that all the above petitiors must fail. There is no infirmity in the orders of learned Civil Judge as well as of learned ADJ. The suits filed by the petitioner were deliberately undervalued in ordr to evade the court fee and to place the matter before the Court of wrong jurisdiction. The were rightly returned to the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to be properly valued and affixing proper court fee. In the result, all the above petitions are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- for each petition. January 29, 2010 SHINAFYA rd Page, 120! 12 )