PETITIONERs / 5m. Kumaki Bai, wife of Sohan La! (Defendant No.3) Sinha, aged about 44 years, R/o. Village, Kumhari, Tahsil - Dhamdha, Disfricf- Durg (6.6.), VERSUS RESPONDENTS LPlainTiffs) /1.. Mohd. Alammir, Son of Marhum Abdul Ajij, aged 7O year‘s, CasTe Ansari, R{o. Panchdevri,‘ Tahsil Dhamdha, Districf DLlr'g (C.G.) aT presenf R/o. Camp—1, Bhilai, Tahsil and DlsfrlcT Dur‘g (C.G.), Through : General Power of ATTorney. (a) Khurshia Ali Son of Mohammadv Ishhak, aged 32 years, Cas‘re Ansari, )b) Mazhar All Son of Mohammad Islam, aged 24 years, CasTé Ansari, No. a and b R/o. ShasTri Nagar Camp—1, Bhilai, Tahsil and Dish‘cf burg (ca) _ Defendant N61. (2) Mohammad Idrish, Son of Mohd. Sharif, R/o. Camp-1, Shas’rri Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil and Disfricf Durg (C.G.) Defendan‘r No.2 /(3) Bhagwaf Prasad Sahu, Son of Mahru Ram, R/o. Village Sankara, Post Kapsada, Disfricf Dur‘g (6.6.) Defendan’r No.4 / (4) Nasruddin Ansar'i, Son of Mohd. Sharif Ansar'i, aged abou‘r 43 years, R/o. infron‘r of Khursipar gate, Fish Market Gali, near Daru Bhah‘i, Khursipar, Durg (C.G.), £§L S’rafe of C.G., Through : The CollecTor/ Officiating Secretary, District Durg (C.G.), WRIT PETITION IUNDER ARTICLE 227/ OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA. mam was U mm WW mm w¢£¥i2l325/£ m ma, WW&WW mmmm . *c‘saafawm v WW SB: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mahan Shrivastava, J. 30.03.2010 Shri R.S. Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.5, on advance copy. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against ~the order dated 4.2.2010 passed by the 12th Additional District Jude (FTC), ZiDurg in Civil Suit No.62 A/07. Respondents/plaintiffs f2led _a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction. In the plaint, suit was valued at Rs.51,100/—, on which total Court fee of Rs.,l§,740/— was fixed. Petitioner/defendant filed its written statement wheriein the valuation done by the plaintiffs was On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court disputed. framed issues. Issue No.6 related to question with regard to valuation of the claim. the impugned order, the learned trial Court has of By recorded that the issue with regard to valuation is a mixed question of law and fact and the same 1herefore could be decided only after \\ ‘x \ evidence is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order suffers from illegality and perversity inasmuch as the preliminary issue with regard t0 valuation should be decided by the learned trial waded ience for its decision. I am unable t0 d counsel for the petitioner. Court as it did not require eVi uphold this contention of learne iffs have valued their suit based upon the prayer made in. the suit,. defendant has disputed this valuation. From the pleadings contained in Para-13 of the plaint and reply in the written statement, it is found that the opinion of learned trial. Court that it is mixed question of law and fact, does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While in the plaint, plaini The petition has no substance. The same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. / Praveen ‘7/ We ate?!