CRP 117/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Choudhur y, learned counsel for the opposite party. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lays a ch allenge to the order dated 9.3.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Div ision) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No. 7/2011 declining to treat the said appeal to have been admitted and requiring the petitioner to get the decree of the learned trial court corrected. The facts in bare essential for the purpose of disposal of the instant petition are that the opposite party instituted Title Suit 102/2001 in the court of the l earned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Cachar, Silchar against the petition er for a decree, amongst others, for his eviction from the suit premises as desc ribed in the schedule to the plaint. The petitioner in addition to the written s tatement also registered a counter claim against the opposite party seeking dism issal of the suit and also declarations as set out therein. By judgment and orde r dated 7.1.11 and decree dated 19.7.11, the suit of the opposite party was decr eed and the counter claim of the petitioner/defendant was rejected. As the memor andum of appeal laid by the petitioner before the learned Civil Judge(Senior Div ision) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar would reveal, the appeal is against the rejection of his counter claim by the judgment and decree aforementioned. It may be mentio ned herein that before the learned trial court the petitioner had valued his cou nter claim for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee at ‘1,000/- being month ly rent of the suit premises and had paid fixed court fee of ‘22/- for the relie fs by way of declaration and ‘10/- for injunction. The petitioner while filing t he aforementioned appeal deposited a court fee of ‘3,550/- and submitted an appl ication before the learned appellate court to accept the amount vis-à-vis his co unter claim of ‘50,000/-, which according to him had been erroneously rejected b y the learned trial court. It is, in this background, that the impugned order wa s passed. Whereas Ms Chakraborty has urged that the aspect of valuation of the appeal need not come in the way of admission thereof in the attending facts and circumstanc es and to pass appropriate orders as warranted thereby, Mr. Choudhury has pointe d out with reference to the relevant provisions of the Civil Courts Rules and Or ders that the same is impermissible without the observance of the essential proc edural requirements prescribed. According to him, as the petitioner has failed t o value of his appeal as required in law, the impugned order is perfectly valid and justified. He has pointed out as well on the basis of the averments made in the petition that meanwhile the petitioner has been evicted from the suit premis es. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the m aterials available on record, this Court is of the view that the prayer made by the petitioner in his application before the learned trial court urging upon it to accept the court fee of ‘3,550/- vis-à-vis his counter claim of ‘ 50,000/- is in departure from the reliefs sought for by him in the counter claim . The decree of the learned trial court would reveal that the petitioner in his application for counter claim had limited his prayer to one for the dismissal of the suit with cost and a series of declarations without however seeking a decre e for payment of ‘50,000/-. As noticed hereinabove, based on the reliefs sought for, the counter claim was valued at ‘1,000/- and fixed court fee of ‘22 for dec laration and ‘10/- for injunction was paid. His appeal before the learned lower appellate court as is apparent from the memorandum of appeal is essentially agai nst the rejection of his counter claim and not the decree for his eviction passe d in Title Suit No. 102/2001. In the above factual premise, this Court considers it appropriate to close this petition with the following observations - 1) The appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned lower appellate co urt would be construed to be one against the rejection of his counter claim only as recorded by the judgment and order dated 7.1.11 and decree dated 19.7.11. 2) The valuation of his appeal i.e. Title Appeal No. 7/11 would be in terms of the reliefs prayed for by him in the counter claim for jurisdiction and cour t fee. 3) On the completion of these formalities and in compliance of the other re quirements in terms of the Civil Courts Rules and Orders, the learned lower appe llate court would deal with the appeal in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The interim order passed in the instant petition stands vacated. The parties wou ld appear before the learned lower appellate court on 5.9.2011 to take further o rders in terms of this determination. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.