1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.94 of 2010 (Shri Kishor Darshanji Talmale and others v. Ramesh s/o Nemkumar Porwal) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri Govind Gurve, Advocate for Applicants. Shri S.S. Rao, Advocate for Respondent. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 6 th December, 2010 This civil revision application challenges the order dated 5-7-2010 passed below Exhibit 37 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kamptee. By this order, the application Exhibit 37 filed by the applicants/defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. The contention of the applicants/defendants was that the relief claimed in the suit is based upon the agreement dated 21-8-2005 in respect of the agricultural land, which is the subject matter of the suit property. According to defendant No.1, he has purchased the property in question by a registered sale-deed dated 29-4-2009 for a consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. Hence, according to him, the maximum court fee is payable on the plaint. The Trial Court has rejected the said objection holding that the suit is simpliciter for injunction and hence it cannot be 2 said that the suit exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have gone through the plaint. It makes a specific averment that the defendant has entered into an agreement in respect of the suit property for a consideration of Rs.19,51,000/- and the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- by cheque at the time of agreement on 21-8-2005. A further specific averment is made in para 3 of the plaint that on 21-8-2005 itself, the plaintiff was put in possession of the agricultural land and since then he is in possession of the same. The relief claimed is for passing a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land personally or through any agent, friend or relative without following due procedure of law. The suit is neither for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, nor for claiming possession of the suit property from the defendant. It is simipliciter for grant of injunction based upon possession claimed by the plaintiff. In view of this, I do not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. The civil revision application is, therefore, dismissed. If this Court has already passed an order directing early disposal of the matter, the Trial Court shall see that the same is complied with. Judge pdl