* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: January 21, 2010 Date of Order: January 29, 2010 +CM(M) 841/2009 % 29.01.2010 Syed Iqbal Ahmad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Kailash Sinyhal & Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Mano] Kurnar, Aavocate for Mr. V,K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sona Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. +CM(M842/2009 - % • Syed Iqbal Ahmad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus . . 4 Shri Rajesh Gupta & Or ...Rspnenc Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lbhia, Advocate for respdent except Item No. 24. • Mr. AkhU M;ttal, Advocate for reciondent hi Item No. 24, Mr..Manoj KUrnar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Ad'.'ocate for the respondnt No. 2 in Item No. i. Ms. Sofia Arora, Advocate for Mr.P.N. Dhar,Advocatc for the reondeft no. 2 in item No. 39. +CM(M)843/2009 .. % . . Syed Iqbal Ahmad - ..Pettioncr • Through: Mr.S.M. A bid Naqvi, Advocate Versus . . . Shri Asho!: Kumzr & Inr. .Responder.ts Mr. Ashutosh Lor' d Adiocate o responcent except Tte.n No '4 Mr. Akhd Mitto, AdvDcatc for respchent in Item No. 2. • •MrMané Toidon, Advocate foU: rcspohder N '- 13. Ms. Sofia A:oc.;c fr M. r.N. Dhr, Advca:e fcr the respondent ro.. 2 tcr-. N'. :. rjjfl)_844/29. . . Syed Iqbal Ahmad . . et.tionr Through Mr S M Abv IcV', Pdvoc'° Versus Shri Pan Kur Jah& Anr. . • • •. ...Resondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lhi, Advocata for respondent èxcépt Ite!1i 140. 24 Page 1(112 S Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item Nc. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for W. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respàndent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms.Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr..P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the res'pondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 845/2009 a % Syed Iqbal Ahmád ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abd Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Vishãl Gupta & Anr. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the rep•cndent No. 2in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no 2 in item No. 32. +CM(M)84612009 - C/0 Syed Iqbal Ahmad .. Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M.Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus - Shri Rahul Kashyap & Or. ...Respondents Through: Mr. -Ashutosh Lbhic, Advocate for respondent except Item No, 24. Mr. AkhI Mittal, Advocate for rcspondent in Item No.24. Mr. Manoj Kurnar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for th respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonla Arora, Advocate for M. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the repondent no. 2 in item No. .39. +CM)47/2OO9 % Syed Iqb Ahmàd ..,Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abicl Naqvi, Advocate Versus Smt. Veermti R:na & Ôrs. ...RespondentS Through: Mr. Ashutush Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No: 24. Mr., Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kurnar, Advocate for W. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. M. Sor.iáArora, Advocate for. Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for th reponc'ei t no 2 in item No 39 + CM(M) 148/2009: % Syd Iqbäl Ahrnaci , ...Petii3ner Througl: Mr.S.M., Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Smt \eerniati Rana & Orc Repordcnts • Pdge .2 Of 12 • ,. .•.. 7 Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr.AkhiI Mittal, Advocate for, respondent in Item No. 24. MrtMahoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for MrP.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No 39. + CM(M) 849/2009 % Syéd Iqbal Ahrnad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abd Naqvi, Advocate Versus Smt. Premwati &Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for rspo1dentexcept Item No. 24. Mr.AkhiI Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Ite,m No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No; 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sofia Aróra, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advoccte for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. +CM(Ffl850/2O09 Oib Syed Iqbal Ahrnãd • Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Nacvi, AdvocátH Versus • Smt. Vineeta 'Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents • Through: Mr. Ahucosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr, Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respoident in Item No. 24. Mr, Manoj Kumar, Advocate foi Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar,Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in itcm No. 39. ±M(M85j2. % Syed lqb] Ahn-d etitoner Through: Mr.S.N. Abid N1vi, Advocat Versus Shri Vinod Aggarwal & Anr. . . . ...Respondent Through: Mr. Ashtosh Lohia, Avocãtë for respondent except Item No. '24. Mr. AkhiI Mittal, Advocate for respondent in item 'Jo. 24. Mr. Manoj Kuma, Advccatu for M-. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No.. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sofia Arora, Advocate for Mr. RN. Dhãr, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 852/219 %. Sycd Ycjb5l Ahmad Through: Mr•S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus - ...Petitonêr • Page3(Ji2 ....'! Shri Rajesh Rana & Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item NO. 24. Mr. Manoj Ku mar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respcndent no. 2 in item No. 39. 13.. j- CM(M) 853/2009 % . Syed Iqbal Ahmad ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Mahavir Pd. Gupta ...Respondent Through: Mr. Ashutosh Loh!a, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr.' Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item N3. 13. Ms. Sonia ArLra, Advocate fo Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for th respondent no; 2 ir item Nc. 39. + CM(M) 855/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad . ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus . . Shri SubhashAggarwal & An. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Loha, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhi MttaI, Advocab ft,r respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manj Kumr, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate fur the repondent No. 2 in Item Nc. 13. - M. Sonic Arora, Ad'ocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2•ia item No 39. + CM(M) 856/2009 Syed Iqbal Ahmad . ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M.Ab;d Naqvi, Adiocate Versus Shri Satpal MaIIotra & Ors. - .. .Respondets Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respcndënt except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate f.r the respondent No. 2 in -item No. 13. M. SoniaArora, AdVoa.te for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item Yo. 39. 16.. - CM(M) 857/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad .. ... Petitioncr Through: Mr.S.M.,Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus P.ge4Of2 7 Smt. Neha Bajaj'&.prs. . . .. ...Respondents Through: Mr. denf except Item No. 24. Mr. AkhiI Mittal, Advocatefor respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sofia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. 17 + CM(M) 858/2009 .% ., ..,. Syed lqbal Ahrnad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Smt. Vineeta Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. AkhiI Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. • Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the • respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 859/2009 % Syed IqbI Ahmad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Srnt. Sangeeta Rana& Ors. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Ad"ocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. ALhiI Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, AdvOcate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13 Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the résondent no. 2 in item No. 39. ±9rj'jj60/2009 . . . . % •. . . !.ed Iqbt .Ahrnad .. . ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, .dvocte Versus . S;ri Ram Niwas Aggarw! & Anr. ...Respondents. Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for responrient except Item Nc. 24. Mr Akhil Mitta, Advocate for rei.ondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Mano.j Kumr, Advocate for M. VK. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocatc for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respotidcnt no. 2 in item No 39. + CM(Mj112009 0/0 Syed qbal Ahrnid . ' ... Pctitcner Through: Mr.S.M. AbidNaq'i, Adyocae . I e5Offl • • •. - - - ,4••• -t,. • : J, Versus . .- Smt. Sangeeta Rana & 'Ors. Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia; Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. AkhiI 'Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj 'Ku mar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms.- Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. + CM(M) 862/2009 , % -. - Syed Iqbal Ahmad ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus '. Shri Ramesh Agarwal & Ors. - .. .Respondents Through: -Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr.' Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate fcr the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13, • Ms. Sonia Arora. Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. '39. + CM(M) 863/2009 Syed IqbaiAhmad ...Ptitiouer Through: W.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Rajiv Rana & Ors. - .. Resonen.s Through; Mr. Ashutosh Lohid; Advocate fc-r rosp;:ndsnt except 1te --io. 24. Mr. Akhl Mittal, Advocate for r2'o:der.c in Item No. 24. Mr. Manôj Kumar, Adc.te for Mr. V.K. Tan1o'n, Advcat for thé respondent -No. 2 in I-tern l'o. !. ' Ms. Sonic Prora, Advica:e for Mr. PN. D.hr, Advocate for tFie respondent no. 2 in item N. +CM(M)864/20.O '• - Syed Iqbal Ahirzd • • ' -...Pettiarier. 'Throuçjl': i'ir.SM. Abid Naqvi. Advocate' 'ercus • Sh'-i 5om Nath' - • - .Reson.dents . • Throuqh;'Mr. Ashutosn 1-ch3,.Athccàteor r'esodènt except Item Nb. 24. Mr.,khi F'-1!ttI, Advocpte tsr ohdent in item !':: Mr. Manoj Kumar, AJvo:ate for Mr. V.K. tndor, Advirote ror w respondent l'!c. 2 in Jtëo Fo. 13. • Mc.- Sonia Aror, Advc-ctc for M r. Dhr, Advocateor th, respondent no. 2 in itn -No. 3. • • CM() 865/2009 ' • % • -, Syed Ic;bal Ahrnad - •' ' '...Pcttioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naovi, Advocate - - -' - •Page6Oj!2 - 1. 4 k Versus Shri )ai Prakash Rana & Ors. .. .Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the respondent No.,2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.Nr Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 3. + CM(M) 866/2009 % Syed Iqbal Ahmad ... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advoct.e for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for the • resondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respbrdent no. 2 in itcm.No. 39. . +CMJiI1 867/2009.. % Sed Iqbal Ahmad . . . . ..Pctition.r Through: Mr.S.M. Abid Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Vinod Gupta & Ors. ...Rcsponde'ts Through: Mr. Ashutosh Loh, Advocate for respondent except Item No. 24. Mr.Akhi !vitta!, Advo:átc Fer respondent in Item No. 24. Mr, Manoj Kumar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandot, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in Item No.13. Ms. Sofia .Arora, Advocate for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in itm No. 39. ..±.CM(M) 868/2009 . 0f • • Syed Iqbal Ahmad • ...Petitirner Though: Mr.S.M. Abd Naqv, Advocte - \ersts . • • • . . Shri Pradeep Jain & Ors. .,.Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate for resp'ndnt except Item No. 24. Mr. AkM Mittal, Advocate for espor.dent r Item No. 24. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advccate for Mr. V K. Tandon, Advocate for the • respondert No. 2 n ltem No. 13. Ms. Sofia Arora, Advocte for Mr. P.N. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item No. 39. • . Page 76f 12 • 28. + CM(M) 869/2009 % Syed Iqbãl Ahmad ...Petitioner Through: Mr.S.M. Abid'Naqvi, Advocate Versus Shri Prabhat Kurnar Sin'h & Ors. ' ...Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutôsh Lohia, Advocate for respohdent except Item No. 24. Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent in Item No: 24. Mr. Manoj Kurnar, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advoc3te ôr the respondent No. 2 in Item No. 13. Ms: Sonia Arora, Advocate for Mr. RN. Dhar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 in item. No. 39. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA Whether reporters of local papers may be .!iowdto see the judgment? To be referred to the reporter or hot? Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? . • JUDGMENT This order shall dispose of all the above petitions preferred by the pe'tione. By the above petitions under Art!cle 227 of the Constitution cf India,' the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27th April, 2009 passed by learned tria Succinctly stating the facts reievant for purpose of deciding the above petitions are that the petitioner herein filed a dvii suit before the Court Cf learned Additional District,Judge .seekihg declaration, possession, permanent and prohibitory injuhction against the' respondents who were m . possessoii of plots of lard in Mahendroo Enclave, Delhi. The petitioner stakod a claim on the various plois of lands where respondents had built up their hoe ar.o were living, on the çr?und that the he was the ow'er of the lard underne'th., The petitioner vaued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction while filing suit before the leerned ADJ at R.3,05..000/- for a plot of land ad measuring'400 sq.yrds. Whr. the léarnLADJ asked the plaintiff (petitioner herein) as :to what was the basis of.valuation, the counsel for the Page8of 12 Y. S .'• petitioner told the Court that h àd h'vlued the propefty at Rs.300 per sq. yards. This was the value written in para 59 of the plaint also. S!nce the petitioner had given the value of land © Rs.'300 per sq yards and the plot was measuring 400 sq yards (The same was the situation in all suits filed before learned ADJ), the,learned ADJ observed that the total value of the plot would come to Rs.1,20,000/- © Rs.300 per sq. yards and if the relief of d'claration, injunctions valued at Rs.200/- each+Rs.130+Rs.130 was also added. the total value would be Rs.1,20,400/-. He, therefore, considered that he had no j.risdictioñ to entertain the suits since his jurisdiction was of cases falng above Rs.3 lac. He, therefore, sent the cases to learned District Judge for sending the cases to the Court of Civil Judge for trial. The petitioner herein a'so flIed i,i 5ieperdentsufts before the leaftied Civil Judge valuing land © Rs.300/ - pr.sq. yard. Tius ah the suits were before the Civii Judge where the petitioner had vaRied the Qroperty at Mahendroo Enc!ave, Delhi, claiming ownership and possession, © Rs.300 per q. yards. 4. It is not in dispute that snce the petitioner has claimed relief.df pc:session, declaration and permarent-injunctioTi etc;. the suit was to be valued ad va!orem on the basis of market vlue of the property, for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee. The learned Civil Judge found that the, suit has been highly undervalued. The suit was for possession and decjaration and the rate of, the land as given bythe petitoner at Rs.300 per, sq. yards in a prime area oI.North Dehi fallind at G.T. KarriaiRad was much below the market value. The suit was filed in the year 2007. Leatned Civi Judge observed that on the basis of circle rzite of the, area, the value of land in that area would be around Rs.20,000/ per sq. yards and, therefore, the suit was higlii' undervalL!ed and he returned the pliint to plaintiff so that the plaintiff may appropriatelyvaIue the suit for the purpoa of j'risdiction and Court fee and file the same in appropriate, court. , Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of ADJ and took the pa that it was the discretion or the petitione to value the suit for the purposes of jurisc1icron and the coüt Fee and the petitioner Page 9O'2 - ."- k ' --- had correctly valued the siit:- Theother plea taken 'by the petitioner was that once the learned ADJ had returned the plaint on the ground that the Civil Judgehas jurisdiction, this decision of learned ADJ became res judicata and the Civil Judge.had no right to return the suit. Both these pleas did not find favour with the learned tADJ and the learned ADJ dismissed the appeal observing that the previous order of learned ADJ returning the plaint would not amount to res judicata and the Civil Judge had jurisdiction to determine the issue of court fee and jurisdiction. He also came to conclusion that the learned Civil Judge rightly returned the plaint since the plaint was high!y undervalued. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned ADJ as well as learned Cvil Judge went wrong in considering the market value of the property on the basis of circle rates. It is submitted that the circle rate was not reflective of. the true value of the property. The value of the land which he ciaimed has to be determined on the basis' of award of Lana Acquisition Collector passed in respect to the adjoining -and acquired by the Government, while this land of the petitioner was not - acquired. He placed a copy of award in respect of adjoining land and stated that his valuation was a correct valuation. . Sub-sections of section 7 of The Court Fees Act contemplate three modes of valuation of subiet mattei. These are: (i) market vaiue viz, market value of the property or claim, (ii) suheçt matter of the suit with no market value, or (iii) estimate by plaintiff or .accorthg to-amount at which reef sought is 'akJ. Thereis no doubt that a suit for property qua which the relief of possession and declaration is so!igbt, the valuatiQn has to be •cne on the basis- of rnarket'ialce of the prcertv on the date of filing of the suit. The plea of petitioners counsel that the valuation hs to be on the basis of award of the ac!joinir.g 'and is a baseless i,nlea. The award relied upon by the petitioner is in respect of year 1964 '.'a!uing the lard as on 196 4 . The ward itself SiVW'S thatthe valuation ri the award was as on the date of acquisition - - 'Page ]Of12 . /4 i.e. of 1964. Thus, the valationof.1964bf the a'iculturai land of that area cannot be the market value of a plot of' land falling in residential colony in the year 2007, the possession of which is now.sought by the petitioner. Since the petitioner is seeking possession in the year 2007 of a plot of land from the respondent. which falls in residential colony and claims ownership over this plot of land (whatever be the basis of his claim) he has to value the suit in accordance with the market valOe of land as on date of filing of the suit. The petitioner has placed orL record one award in respect of land at Burari, Delhi. This award is 02LAC,J'N/05-06 whereby the land was acquired for biOdiversity park in the year January 2004. .This .award filed by the, petitioner shows that the land acquired by LAC of VIII ge irari was a vacant land and it1was not a land of residential colony. Even this and was acquired @ Rs.10;000/-.Per sq. yards inJanuary, 2004. "Eveli 'joing by this a yard, which the petitioner himself relies the value of land of 400 sq yards of land in t ie residcntialcolony FaIling on GT Kárnal Rod, a known industrial and residential re of North Delhi, would be much more in 2003-04 than Rs.10,000/- per sq yards. The circle rate as determined by t e government in the year 2007 was Rs.21,800/-' per.q. yards in resject of the I nd in question' i.e. Mahendroo Enclave. The contention of counsel for petitioner that the circle rate was not reflective of, the true value is absolutely correct. The circle rte .ilways piuth less tlan the actu! prevalent rnaket rates. Even this crcic .rate5 w nhreflectiveo tr2 V3!ue or 2007 4 • in the area as in actuality the market rate-ir the area vias much more than Rs.1 ac per sq yards approximately. The petitidners valuing of the suit a Rs.300/- per sq yards was unrealistic and the learned Civil Judge as. well as the learned ADJ rightly came to conclusion that this valjat;on was to be rejected. 'It is settle . aw that iurisdic:cn and he Court fee does not depend onthë form of pled'ngs. 'but depends on the real subst3nce of relief clamed. Under Section 7 (v).ofTie C ur't Fees Act, asiiit whc posscsion of Pa IOr 12 '4 land! house is prayed for, tice'aluation h s to be done as per the market value prevalent at that timeTThe jurisdiction , of he Couf iis basic concern of the Court, whether or not an objection is raised by the defendant. The Court is supposed to consider jurisdictional. arid court fee aspec beforecOrrmencing the trial of a case and ensure that It has jurisdiction to proced wth tie case. It is net adyisabl that the Court should, after holdng the ertire t ia come to a conclusion that it r.ad no jurisdiction to cnduct the trial in the case In view of my fôregong di3cussion, I cos!der that all the abnvc retitons must fail;There is no inflrinity in the orders of earned Civil Judge as wet! as of learned ADJ. The suits fied by the petitioner were deliberately undervalued in cider to evade the - court fee and to pac2 the iattr befor2the. Court of wrong jurisdiction. The were riçtly rturnd to the pla!ntff(e iicr!e.:.rer,) t be pro.e1y. viued ri affixing propi coLlrt In the result, the abce 3t-:) s. are iereby disr sed PV NA4 R5 rd - P3 12 -Of 12 -k