1 W.P.No.3039 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3039 OF 2011 Shantaram s/o Bhivsan Mali, Since deceased through his L.Rs 1. Vimalbai w/o Shantaram Mali, Age 62 years, Occu.Household 2. Sanjay s/o Shantaram (Mali) Baviskar, Age 46 years, Occupation Legal Practitioner 3. Rajendra s/o Shantaram (Mali), Baviskar, Age 37 years, Occupation Service 4. Dinesh s/o Shantaram (Mali), Baviskar, Age 35 years, Occupation Agriculturist 5. Avinash s/o Shantaram (Mali) Baviskar, Age 32 years, Occupation Agriculturist, All R/o Lane No.3, House No.345, Subhash Nagar, Near Durga Mata Mandir, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule 6. Mrs Usha w/o Sudhir Devre, Age 40 years, Occu.Household, R/o Indira Colony, Deopur, Dhule Taluka and District Dhule .. PETITIONERS (L.Rs. of Original Defendant No.4) VERSUS 1. Dayaram s/o Dalpat Mali, Since deceased through his L.Rs. 1-A) Smt.Kalmabai w/o Dayaram Mali, Age 75 years, Occu.Household 1-B) Deelip s/o Dayaram Sonwane (Mali), Age 48 years, Occu.Trader & Agriculture 2 W.P.No.3039 of 2011 1-C) Mohan s/o Dayaram Sonwane (Mali), Age 47 years, Occu.Agriculture 1-D) Sharad s/o Dayaram Sonwane (Mali), Age 44 years, Occu.Agriculture All r/o Mandal, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule 1-E) Sau Sushilabai w/o Danyal Mahajan, Age 53 years, Occu.Household, R/o Plot No.40, Satsang Colony, Deopur, Dhule, Taluka and Dist.Dhule RESPONDENTS (L.Rs. of orig.Plaintiff) 2. Rajaram s/o Bhivsan Mali, since deceased through his L.Rs. 2-A) Smt.Amrutabai w/o Rajaram Mali, Age 70 years, Occu.Household, 2-B) Anand s/o Rajaram Mali, Age 56 years, Occu.Business 2-C) Suresh s/o Rajaram Mali, Age 48 years, Occu.Business 2-D) Ramesh s/o Rajaram Mali, Age 46 years, Occu.Business 2-E) Sham s/o Rajaram Mali, Age 44 years, Occu.Agriculture 2-F) Shobhabai Shantaram Mali, Age Adult, Occu.Business, All R/o Plot No.87, Sharda Nagar, Deopur, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule .. RESPONDENTS (L.Rs. of Orig.Defendant No.1) Mr C.R.Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners Mr S.P.Shah, Advocate for respondent Nos.1-B to 1-E and 4-A to 4-D and 5 Respondent Nos.2-A to 2-F and 3 served 3 W.P.No.3039 of 2011 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 16th November, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard extensively. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. In Regular Civil Suit No.628 of 1992, an application below Exh. 166 was moved by the legal representatives of defendant No.4 and consequently, the learned Judge framed preliminary issues by order dated 18.3.2010, as to - (A) Whether the suit is properly valued ? (B) Whether this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit ? Thereafter, the plaintiff filed purshis Exh.209, informing that he does not wish to adduce any evidence on preliminary issues. On behalf of the defendant, one Sanjay was examined, who tendered his affidavit below Exh.212. 4. The controversy between the parties relates to valuation of the suit as the plaintiff had initially paid Court fee of Rs.20/- and Rs.200/-, 4 W.P.No.3039 of 2011 while the defendant claimed that the valuation of the suit should be properly done, as the suit property was to fetch at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per square feet, the land would cost Rs.12,00,00,000/- (Rs.Twelve Crores), while the construction would fetch around Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rs.Sixty lacs). The valuation of Projector was Rs. 2,59,195/-. The valuation of Screen was Rs.25,000/-; the valuation of generator was Rs.81,250/-; the chairs were worth Rs.26,160/-; the valuation of coolers was Rs.60,000/- and the valuation of 40 to 45 fans was Rs.20,000/-. According to the defendant, in the year 1992 the correct valuation of the suit property was Rs.12,73,81,470/- and since the plaintiff claimed 17% share in the property, the valuation would come to Rs.2,16,54,849/-. The learned Judge primarily accepted these assertions made by the defendant Sanjay and found that the suit valued by the plaintiff is not correctly done. The plaintiff, according to the learned Judge was required to give a tentative valuation of the property, of which he is claiming relief and consequently, the learned Judge recorded that the plaintiff has not furnished the effective valuation, which he ought to have done. The learned Judge held that, “ the huge stake is subject matter of the suit, which exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction” and consequently, he answered issue No.2 in the negative. The learned Judge in the operative part of the order dated 17.6.2010 informed that plaintiff shall properly value the suit within 15 days of the order and shall give correct valuation; else on failure of plaintiff, the plaintiff would stand rejected. 5 W.P.No.3039 of 2011 5. Pursuant to such direction, it is apparent within the stipulated time the plaintiff carried the valuation on 29.6.2010 and sought permission to incorporate relevant paragraph for valuation, as per purshis Exh.223. 6. Mr Deshpande submits that since the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as it has observed while answering issue No.2, it could not have entered into arena of directing the plaintiff to pay additional Court fees. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Judge should have left this issue to be adjudicated by the proper Court. According to him, the only course available was to reject the plaint and direct the parties to approach proper forum. Learned Counsel has placed reliance to the judgment of this Court dated 8.12.2003 Shreyans Industries Vs. State of U.P. (reported in 2004 Mh.L.J.1-50) and in the matter of Amar Chand Inani Vs. Union of India, decided in a Supreme Court on 13.10.1972,. (reported in 1973 SCC (1) 115. With due respect, these judgments do not answer the controversy at hand, as they deal with the territorial jurisdiction of different Courts and presentation of the suit in wrong forum. In the matter of Amar Chand (supra), the question of limitation was also raised, which the Honourable Lordship discussed in paragraph 9 as the time consumed in presentation of the proceedings. To repeat, present matter revolves to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and not to the territorial jurisdiction. 6 W.P.No.3039 of 2011 7. Law does not inhibit any Court, to first direct the plaintiff to make remittance of specific Court fee and then to transmit the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The situation, as emerged by virtue of evidence was sufficient to the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division to direct payment of Court fees within stipulated time by proper valuation and to answer, suit exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction. The learned Judge asked the plaintiff to value the suit properly and on noticing the valuation is carried, the suit was transferred to proper Court, i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division, as it lacs pecuniary jurisdiction by virtue of even the primary valuation of the plaint. In the situation, I do not see any error on the part of the learned Judge. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 8. All points, which are argued here between the litigating parties are kept open. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (vvr/3039.11wp)