1 fa864-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa FIRST APPEAL NO.864 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CROSS OBJECTION ST. NO.22280 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1468 OF 2011 Sandeep Sampatraj Kothari .. Appellant V/s. Promod B. Kejriwal & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr. G. M. Joshi for the appellant. Mr. Lalit Jain for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2011. P.C.:- By consent taken up for final hearing. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The trial Court by the impugned decree has dismissed the suit. One of the findings recorded by the trial Court is that the suit has not been property valued and in fact the suit ought to have been valued as per Section 6(iv) (ha) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to the “said Act”). 2 fa864-10 The finding is that if the suit is properly valued, the City Civil Court will not have peculiar jurisdiction to entertain it. While answering issue Nos. 4 and 5, the trial Court held that the suit has not been properly valued and that the said Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant on instructions states that the appellant is accepting the correctness of the findings on issue Nos. 4 and 5. He submits that the impugned decree may be set aside and an order of return of plaint may be passed. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The perusal of the impugned Judgment shows that the finding on the issue Nos. 1 and 2 has been recorded in favour of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said finding, the respondents have filed Cross Objection. The appellant has accepted the finding of the trial Court on the issue of valuation and jurisdiction. The respondents have not disputed the said findings. Therefore, the City Civil Court had no peculiar jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. In fact, after recording the said finding, the trial Court ought to have returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. 3 fa864-10 5. Hence, the Appeal and the Cross Objection must succeed in part and I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. The impugned Judgment and decree is modified . The findings on issue Nos. 4 and 5 are confirmed. However, findings on other issues namely issue Nos. 1 and 2 are quashed and set aside as the said findings have been recorded by the Court having no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ii. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the appellant for presentation to the appropriate Court. iii. The Appeal and Cross Objection are partly allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs. iv. Civil Application No.1468 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 4 fa864-10 v. To enable the appellant to take appropriate steps, interim relief granted earlier in the Appeal will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. JUDGE