IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP MO No. 439 of 2008 Date of decision May 07, 2009 __________________________________________________________ Charan Dass ….Petitioner. Versus Lekh Rej ….Respondent _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1: Shri G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 & 3: None __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by defendant No. 3 before the trial Court challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II, Sundernagar, District Mandi on an application preferred by the petitioner herein under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for dismissal of the suit for non- fixation of Court fee on the market value of the property. The petitioner pleaded that the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court which question goes to the root of the case, the value of suit property is more than Rs. 40-45 lacs and therefore, the plaint deserves to be 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction and be dismissed for non-fixing the correct court fee. One of the objections which was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff is that a similar application had been filed which was dismissed on 13.9.2002 and therefore, the present petition was not maintainable. Counsel also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Prithvi Raj Jhingta Vs. Gopal Singh, AIR 2007 HP 11 holding that where the Court had framed issues on law and facts, they should be tried together. Another decision of this Court in Puran Chand Vs. Pat Ram AIR 2008 (NOC) 1468 (HP) was also referred to. Without going into the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction that it is but expected that an issue on merits of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court having been framed, the Court would dispose all issues after recording evidence. Needless to say that question regarding the value of property is a mixed question of law and facts and would require evidence before the pronouncement of judgment. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. May 07, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge