HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 223 of 2010 Decided on: 25.5.2011 Vinod Kumar and others ……… Petitioners. Versus Brijender Singh ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioners: Ms.Rita Goswami, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 31.3.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.I, Mandi, vide which the preliminary issues for valuation of the suit qua the court fee and jurisdiction were decided as against the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. The record of the case was also called for. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court shows that it had framed the following two preliminary issues in regard to jurisdiction and court fee: “1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged, if so its effect? OPD 2) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD” - 2 - 5. The parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned order held that the court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff had claimed declaration qua sale deed No.355, dated 31.3.1998, which he had purchased for a total sale consideration of Rs.1.00 lac. Accordingly, it was held that the learned trial Court had the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 6. The plea taken by the petitioner/defendants was that a reference has been made to the four sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants on different dates and the value of the whole sale deeds comes to Rs.10,35,712/- and that the plaintiff should have paid the court fee accordingly. The plaintiff did make a reference in the plaint to the sale deeds in question in favour of the defendants, but no declaration in regard to those sale deeds has been claimed by the plaintiff, in the suit. Declaration claimed by him is only in regard to the land measuring 0-17-8, which he had purchased vide sale deed No.355, dated 31.3.1998, for a sale consideration of Rs.1.00 lac. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision in Udhav Singh vs. Madhav Rao Scindia, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 744. The following observations were made in para 30, which are relevant and are being reproduced below: “A pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context, in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words, or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered, primarily, from the tenor and terms of his pleading taken as a whole.” 8. It is clear from a perusal of the above decision that the plaint has to be read as a whole. But, in the present case, the relief claimed by the plaintiff cannot be ignored since the relief is confined only to the sale deed in - 3 - favour of the plaintiff, which was of the value of Rs.1.00 lac and no relief has been claimed in regard to the four sale deeds in favour of the defendants, whose value exceeds Rs.10.00 lacs. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court had come to a right conclusion that it had jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, the present petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. Parties through their counsel are directed to put up appearance before the learned trial Court on 27.6.2011. Since the case is of the year 2003, therefore, the learned trial Court shall try to dispose the same, as far as possible, by 31.12.2011. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment alongwith the records of the case so as to reach the learned trial Court well before the date fixed. 9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. Dasti copy. May 25, 2011. (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge