IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 66 of 2004 Date of decision: 23.11.2010 Ganthu Ram …. Petitioner Versus Chuni Lal & ors ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.G.R.Palsra, counsel for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.R.K.Gautam, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Archana Dutt, counsel for respondents No.5 to 10, 12 and 13. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 1.3.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu whereby he upheld the order dated 3.7.2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu whereby ordering the return of the plaint to the plaintiff. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he is owner in 2 possession of the suit property. He also claimed that the sale deed dated 30.12.1996 whereby he is alleged to have sold some share in the property to the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- is a forged document and he is not bound by the same. The learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that since the land forming the subject matter of the sale deed was of the value of Rs.2,40,000/-, the suit had to be valued at Rs.2,40,000/- for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and since the learned Trial Court at the relevant time did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to decide cases of over Rs.2 lacs, it ordered return of the plaint to the plaintiff. 3. An appeal against this order was filed in the Court of learned District Judge who not only dismissed the appeal but also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was required to pay court fees on the amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. As far as this finding of the learned Lower Appellate Court is concerned, in my view, the learned District Judge was not required to give such a finding because the plaint had only been ordered to be returned to the plaintiff and once the Court orders the return of the plaint, it becomes 3 functus officio and cannot give further directions. It is only for the court of competent jurisdiction to decide whether proper court fees has been affixed or not. 4. However, there can be no dispute that the suit for the purpose of valuation had to be valued at Rs.2,40,000/- which was the value of the sale deed which was alleged to have been obtained by fraud and thus not binding upon the plaintiff. In fact, this is only an academic exercise in view of the fact that now the learned Trial Court itself has the jurisdiction to decide matters even of this valuation. Therefore, the orders of both the courts below are set aside due to subsequent events and the matter is remitted to the learned Trial Court for decision in accordance with law. It is made clear that the issue with regard to the affixation of court fees shall be decided by the learned Trial Court totally uninfluenced by any observations of the Learned Lower Appellate Court. 5. I have been informed at the Bar that the plaint was returned after the statement of the plaintiff was recorded. It is made clear that the learned Trial Court shall proceed in the suit from the stage when it directed its return. Since the original suit was filed in 4 the year 1999, the learned Trial Court shall endeavour to decide the same at the earliest and in any event not later than 31st October, 2011. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 3.1.2011. 6. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. November 23, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge