SM 1 24.wp.8200.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8200 OF 2011 Shri. Dadaso Jahiroddin Patil ....Petitioner. Versus Sou. Farjana Burhanddin Patil and others ....Respondents. ____________ Mr. Sandesh Patil for the Petitioner. CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: The above petition takes exception to the order dated 2nd July, 2011 passed by the District Judge-3, Sangli in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2009 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs came to be allowed and resultantly, the order dated 13th February, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj in Regular Civil Suit No. 220 of 2008, by which order, the plaintiff were directed to deposit deficit court fee of Rs.3,100/- and after such deposit, plaint was directed to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being presented to the Court having jurisdiction to entertain the same. 2. To appreciate the controversy involved in the present petition, the relief sought in the suit has relevance. The relief sought in the suit is as regards perpetual injunction SM 2 24.wp.8200.11 sought by the plaintiffs against the defendant not to cause obstruction for the common use of the tractor bearing No. MH-10-933. The defendant raised objection in the light of the said relief claimed in the plaint that the learned Civil Judge Junior Division would have no jurisdiction in view of the fact that the valuation of the suit would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said court. According to the defendant, the value of the tractor os of Rs.2,51,514/- and the value of the suit house is Rs.50,000/- and therefore, the same if taken together would be beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the said court. The trial court, therefore, considered the issue as to whether it had jurisdiction to try the suit on the basis of the receipt produced by the defendant of Rs.2,51,514/- and considering plaintiff's half share in it, and also taking into consideration the value of the suit house as Rs.50,000/- which was also a part of the subject matter of the plaint. The trial court held that the plaintiffs ought to have paid the court fees of Rs.8,230/-. However, the plaintiffs had paid court fees of only Rs.5,130/- and since the valuation of the said was more than Rs.1,00,000/-, the said court would not have jurisdiction. Hence, by the impugned order dated 13th February, 2009 the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj directed the plaintiffs to pay deficit court fee of Rs.3,100/- and after such deposit, present the plaint before the court having jurisdiction to entertain SM 3 24.wp.8200.11 the same. 3. The plaintiffs take exception to the order by filing Misc. Civil Application No. 34 of 2009. the First Appellate Court, on the ground that since the plaintiffs were only claiming an injunction against the defendant not to obstruct them for using the tractor in question was of the view that the same would be covered by Section 6 (iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 as the said relief is not susceptible of monetary valuation. The first appellate court also held that the trial court proceeded on the wrong premise of the valuation of the tractor as Rs.2,51,514/- on the basis of the receipt produced by the defendant of the year 1996. According to the First Appellate Court, the value of the tractor on applying the principle of depreciation had become considerably less and had virtually become zero and therefore, the First Appellate Court was of the view that the suit was correctly valued and the court fee has been correctly paid on the same and therefore, set aside the said order passed by the trial court on 13th February, 2009 and also resultantly held that the said court would have jurisdiction. 4. In my view, the fact that the tractor was purchased in the year 1996 for a sum of Rs.2,51,514/- and whose value is SM 4 24.wp.8200.11 depreciated over a period of time was lost sight of by the trial court. Apart from the fact that the plaintiff was only claiming relief of injunction against the defendants not to obstruct him from the use of the tractor in question. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has not sought any relief of declaration of his title or his share qua the tractor. Hence, in my view the appellate court has rightly held that the value of the suit in sofar as the relief claimed qua the tractor under Section 6 (iv)(j) was correct. Assuming for a moment that the value of the tractor was Rs.2,51,514/- in the year 1996 taking into consideration the fact that the tractor was bought in the year 1996 and considering its depreciated value, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has unvalued the suit in the context of the relief sought qua the tractor. 5. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)