IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.687 of 2009 1. BALESHWAR YADAV, S/O RAJWARI YADAV 2. SHEOLAL YADAV, S/O SRI BALESHWAR YADAV BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-GIRIYAK, P.S.- GIRIYAK, DISTRICT-NALANDA. …………APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS. Versus JOGENDRA PRASAD, S/O POKHRAJ PRASAD, VILLAGE SIKANDRA, P.S.-GIRIYAK, DISTRICT-NALANDA. …………RESPONDENT/OPPOISTE PARTY. ----------- 2 01.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. This revision application has been filed by the plaintiff against order dated 7.2.2009 passed by the District Judge, Nalanda at Biharshariff in Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 2008. By the said judgment the appellate court has rejected the Misc. Case filed by the plaintiff against orders dated 25.3.2008 and 24.6.2008 passed by the learned Additional Munsif-IV, Nalanda at Biharshariff By the first order in Title Suit No. 26 of 2006, the learned Munsif had held that the learned court below has examined the petition of the defendant-opposite party and found that the correct valuation of the suit comes to Rs.94,000/- and, therefore, the suit was beyond his jurisdiction. Therefore, he ordered that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff to enable him to file the same before a competent court. By the second order, the learned court below - 2 - has rejected the petition of the plaintiff filed under Section 151 of the C.P.C. for recall of the earlier order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the plaint, it is apparent that the relief no. 3 was merely a declaratory relief and, in fact, the same was consequential to the relief no. 1. Therefore, he submits that the court below has erred in fixing valuation of relief no. 3 independently and added the valuation of relief no. 1 and thereby wrongly assessed the valuation of the suit. He further submits that since in any case, relief no. 3 was a merely declaratory relief the plaintiff was not required to file ad valorem court fee on the same. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the cases of Mostt. Sohagwati Devi & Another Vs. Mostt. Lakhpatiya Devi and Others reported in 1975 PLJR 349 and Kamaldeo Prasad Singh Vs. Smt. Ram Shawari Devi and Another reported in 2006 (4) PLJR 443. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party submits that the suit has been rightly valued at Rs.94,000/- by the learned court below and, therefore, the plaint has been - 3 - rightly returned to the plaintiff for filing before the competent court. After going through the relief sought for by the plaintiff in the plaint, from the wordings of relief no. 3 it does not appear that the said relief has been sought for by the plaintiff as a consequence of grant of relief no. 1. Therefore, from the wordings, it can not be inferred that the said relief is consequential to grant of relief no. 1 and was not an independent relief sought for by the plaintiff. However, it appears that the said relief is of declaratory nature only. In the circumstances, so far the question of valuation of the suit is concerned the court below has rightly valued the suit by fixing valuation of the relief no. 3 independently. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned court below. Plaintiff has been given liberty to file plaint before the competent court and, therefore, no injury is caused to the plaintiff by the said order. It is another question that even if the relief no. 3 has been assessed as independent relief and on the basis of the same valuation of plaint has been fixed, which the defendant-opposite party has - 4 - claimed to be correct, the plaintiff will always be at liberty to assert before the court, in which the plaint will be filed, that he is not required to file ad valorem court fee since the relief is only of declaratory nature. In such view of the matter, with the above observations, this revision application is disposed of. Arvind/ (J.N Singh, J)