RAM NARAYAN & ORS. VS. CIVIL JUDGE(S.D.), MANDALGARH & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6721/03 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR RAM NARAYAN & ORS. VS. CIVIL JUDGE(S.D.), MANDALGARH & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6721/03 ) Dated :- 28th May,2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.Paramveer Singh for Mr. T.S.Champawat, for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Chotia for Mr. Sachin Acharya, for the respondent no.2. 1. In this writ petition, the defendants-petitioners have assailed validity of order dated 27.5.03 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara in civil suit No.9/02 whereby a issue with regard to jurisdiction of the court has been decided as preliminary issue against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963( in short “the Act of 1963” hereinafter) in respect of a house purchased by him by way of registered sale deed dated 16.3.02 from the defendants-petitioners. The suit is being contested by the defendants-petitioners by filing a written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the issues wherein Issue no. 5 was as to “whether the suit is within the jurisdiction of the court ?” RAM NARAYAN & ORS. VS. CIVIL JUDGE(S.D.), MANDALGARH & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6721/03 ) 2 3. The defendants-petitioners preferred an application under Order VII Rule 10 stating therein that the subject matter of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court therefore, the plaint deserves to be returned to the plaintiff for proper presentation or the same may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. 4. The plaintiff-respondent contested the application taking the stand that on a suit filed under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 , the court fee is payable on half of the market value of the property therefore, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court also deserves to be determined on the basis of the valuation of the suit. According to the defendants-petitioners since the market value of the property was determined at Rs.62,500/- and the court fee was payable on half of the value of the property i.e. 31,250/- therefore, the suit was well within the jurisdiction of the learned trial court. 5. After due consideration of submissions of the parties to the suit, the learned trial court vide order impugned decided the issue no. 5 as preliminary issue holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent in regard to the disputed property is maintainable inasmuch as the court fee paid on half of the market value of the disputed property is proper and pecuniary jurisdiction of the court shall also be determined accordingly. RAM NARAYAN & ORS. VS. CIVIL JUDGE(S.D.), MANDALGARH & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6721/03 ) 3 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants- petitioners before this court that the learned trial court has seriously erred in entertaining the suit in regard to the disputed property which has been valued at Rs.62,500/- whereas the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial court is Rs.60,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that the pecuniary jurisdiction has to be determined on the basis of the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit and not on the basis of the valuation of the suit for the purpose payment of court fees. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent relying upon the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1963 and Section 28 of the Rajasthan Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act, 1961 submitted that the legal position has rightly been appreciated by the learned trial court and the order impugned does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Indisputably, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the courts is dealt with u/s 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which reads as under:- “S.6. Pecuniary jurisdiction.-Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall RAM NARAYAN & ORS. VS. CIVIL JUDGE(S.D.), MANDALGARH & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6721/03 ) 4 operated to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits( if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.” 10. A bare perusal of the said provision goes to show that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court shall be determined on the basis of the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit. Obviously, if the value of subject matter of the suit exceeds the pecuniary limit of the court then, it has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit . 11. Admittedly, in the suit for possession filed u/s 6 by the plaintiff-respondent , the value of the subject matter of the suit i.e. disputed property has been disclosed at Rs. 62,500/- and the court below has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit wherein the subject matter of the suit does not exceed the value Rs.60,000/-. In this view of the matter, the court below has no jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent. 12. It is true that as per the provisions of Section 28 of the Act of 1961 , the court fee in a suit for possession of immovable property u/s 6 of the Act of 1963 , the court fee is liable to be computed on one half of the market value of the property or on Rs.200/- whichever is higher. But then, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is not determined on the basis of the valuation of the suit for the purpose of the court fee but, on the basis of the amount or subject matter of the suit which in the instant case RAM NARAYAN & ORS. VS. CIVIL JUDGE(S.D.), MANDALGARH & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6721/03 ) 5 undoubtedly exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court below. 13. In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this court, the learned trial court has seriously erred in deciding the issue no. 5 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendants-petitioners .It is held that the court below lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore, the plaint deserves to be returned to the plaintiff for proper presentation. 14. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 27.5.03 passed by the Civil Judge(S.D.), Mandalgarh in civil suit No. 9/02 is set aside. The issue no. 5 is determined in favour of the defendants-petitioners and against the plaintiff-respondent. Accordingly, the learned trial court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff- respondent with endorsement in terms of Order VII Rule 10(2) of CPC. However,it will be open for the plaintiff-respondent to make an application in terms of Order VII Rule 10 A before the learned trial court. Needless to say that if any such application is preferred , the same shall be disposed of by the learned trial court expeditiously in accordance with provisions of Order VII Rule 10 A CPC. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/-