IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2150 of 2008 FARIDA KHANAM Versus SMT. MADHU DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 6/1/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court from paragraph 17 of the plaint it is absolutely clear that the suit in question is out and out a suit for specific performance of contract. Paragraph 17 of the plaint reads as follows:- “ That the plaintiffs prays for the following reliefs:- a) That the Court be pleased to hold and declare that the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed in her favour and she is entitled to acquire the property as its co-sharers also. b) That the court be further pleased to hold and declare that the defendant Ist party has not acquire any title by the sale deed bearing No. 2201 dated 07.03.2000 because it was not a valid transaction according to law. c) That the court be further pleased to adjudicate that the sale deed bearing No. 2201 dated 07.03.2000 of Registry Office, Bhagalpur is null and void in operative and a sham transaction. d) That the court be pleased to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff. e) That any other relief or reliefs be also awarded 2 to the plaintiff as the court thinks fit and proper. Schedule of the suit land. Manalla Kajiwalichak, within town Bhagalpur, Ward No. 8/9 holding no. 12 (old) 15 New Khata 397, plot No. 511 (part). Area:-030 Cent. North:-Pappu Miyan. South Pucca Road, East. Subhas Mandal and Sahdeo Mandal. West:-Bhagwan Mandal.” It is the case of the plaintiff- opposite party that the defendant- petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale for the land in question for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was already advanced. It is again case of the plaintiff-opposite party that even after being ready to pay the balance amount of Rs. 5,000/- the defendant- petitioner did not fulfill his part of agreement leading to filing of the suit specially when the suit for breach of contract came to be confirmed in view of subsequent sale deed dated 7.3.2000 for the same piece of land for a sum of Rs. 32,000/-. It is thus clear that the relief no.B and C are merely consequential in nature and the valuation of the suit of 3 Rs.25,000/- is perfectly in order. That being so, the filing of application questioning pecuniary jurisdiction of the court below was wholly misconceived and was rightly dismissed. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the same. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar