Mishri La], aged about 76 years, S/o Late Shri Sukhlal Luniya (Jain), at present residing at Ward No. 11 ‘, Jain Mohana, Mahasamund (CG). 2. Shantinath Bhagawan Jain Mandir Trust Mahasamund, reg’stration number 111/12/61 , through its President Swaroop Chand Luniya, aged 57 years, S/o Late Shri Kesharimal Luniya, r/o Gandhi Chowk Mahasamund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). 3. Jhankar Bai aged 85 years D/o Late Shri Sukhlal W/o Bhimraj Ji Chopra, r/o Bhoipara Chopra, Durg (CG). Smt. Uma aged 42 years, D/o Late Shri A. Raj W/o Shanti Lai Ji Surana, r/o Kaiiash Nagar , Rajnandgaon (CG). 5. Lachhu Bai aged 71 years D/o Late Shri’ Sukhlal Ji W/o Subhashmal Ji Oswal, r/o Baniya Para, Durg (co). 6. Sua Bai aged 6O years, D/o Late Sukhlal Ji Wd/o Late Gambhirmal Ji Golchha, r/o Goli Para, Chandi Mandir Road, Durg (CG). PETITIONERS DEFENDANTS u AND Suresh Chand , aged about 58 years, S/o Late Shri Bastimal Luniya, occupation business, r/o Nandai Kuan Chowk, Daroga Chhal, Rajgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG). RE PLAINTIFF 2. Sub Reg'strar, Reg'stry omce, Mahasam, District Mahasamund (CG). 3. Dhapu Bai aged 82 years D/o Late Shri Sukhlal Ji Wd/o Late Shri Heuuaj Ji Kotadiya, r/o Nandai Kuan Chowk, Daroga Chha1 , Rajnandgaon (CG Ijra Bai aged 73-years D/o Late Shri Bastl Ji, W/o Shri Kasturchand Ji Bhansali, r/o Madras Mohan Bai aged 70 years, D/o Late Bastil Ji W/o Bastimal Ji W/o Jhumar La Ji Lodhra, r/o Jodhpur, Rajnandgaon (CG). MKb", ‘euMLvJ‘ Digkb Dwv)’ Log) f 7. Inder Chand, aged 34 years, W/ o Late Shri Chaimaj) 9mg? Dcgr- COCA.) Lat€ShriSukhlalJi,Ne\/O She/kx M budge kQ/ SgxmM 7 DuAj 8. 'Sunita Jain aged 38 years D o Late Shri Chainraj, NCAO 5%QV MMUJ’i WV K LO ' gqowwvL. DMAj Cbi‘sHD‘ yew / Te A? 6. Sada Bai aged 65 years Wd/o Late Shri Chainraj S/o nand SPONDENT NO. 1 und ). ima ma 1 W Lalit Kumar Soni Jewelers Durg (CG). r/o Ward No.11, & ~ WRIT PETITION UIA<226 (1&4) OF THE CONSITITUTION ' OF V» INDIA 9. Anita aged 36 years D/o Late Shri Chainraj, W/o , r/o Bhilai-S Shubhkamna 10. Smt. Uma aged 45 years Wd/o Late Shri Dhanraj Luniya, D/o Late Shri Sukhlal Ji, Jain Mohalla, Mahasamund (CG). . Hansraj aged 53 years, S/o Late Shri Sukhlal Ji, behind Railway Station, Nagpur (Maharashtra). /7‘7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S B Hon’ble Shrl P1 ashant Kumar Mlslu a VVI 1t Petmon (227) N0. 6984/2010 Appearance: Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the petitioners. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (02.12.2010) Heard. (2) The petitioners/defendants have challenged the order passed by the trial court on 19m March, 2009 rejecting their application under Order 7 Rule ll of CPC as also the order passed on 29/09/2010 rejecting their prayer for framing additional issues and deciding it as preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule S of CPC. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the market value of the property is about Rs.ll lakhs and the suit has been valued at Rs.1000/4, therefore the plaint should have been rejected as it is presented before a court not having pecuniary jurisdiction. He would also submit that framing of additional issue is I 'l necessary because admittedly the plaintiff is not in possession and the lsuit in its present form Without [seeking relief for delivery of 1/ l 1 possession is not maintainable. PETITIONERS : Mishri La] and others Versus RESPONDENTS : Suresh Chand and others 1’ “e V ki‘ir €w4l (r) x4» r< u (4) On perusal of both the orders passed by the learned trial court it would appear that the suit filed by the plaintiff is for declaration and permanent injunction. Plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs.1000/- for declaration and at Rs.400/- for permanent injunction. As per section 7 (IV), (c) and (d) ofthe Court Fees Act a suit for declaration and injunction has to be valued and court fees has to be paid according to the amount at which relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. (5) In view of this learned trial court has rightly rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. (6) The application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC has been rejected after observing that plaintiff has only prayed for a declaration and permanent injunction and the right and entitlement to obtain such a decree can be decided only after recording evidence of the parties. (7) It has been observed by the trial court that merely because possession has not been sought in the plaint the suit does not become non-maintainable. (8) In the opinion ofthis court, when the suit is fixed for recording of evidence of parties, asking the court to frame preliminary issue without participating in the trial is not proper. The trial court has x rightly rejected the prayer for framing of additional issue and treating it as preliminary issue. N“ ,3, (9) Writ petition has no substance, which fails and is hereby dismissed. ¢/ Sdl- Prashan / t Kumar Mi Shra Judge "7/