1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9687 OF 2009 Sou.Kusum Raghunathrao Nagargoje ...Petitioner vs. Surgonda Balgonda Patil & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.V.M.Thorat for the petitioner Mr.Umesh Mankapure for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 30, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The first respondent is the original plaintiff. Considering the narrow controversy involved in this writ petition, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2 The first respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The suit has been valued for the purposes of prayer for injunction and declaration at Rs.1000/-. An application was made by the petitioner at Exhibit-32 praying for return of the plaint. The main contention in the said application was that the suit was undervalued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 3 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of the contentions raised by the petitioner, the trial Court ought to have made an enquiry as contemplated under section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act,1959 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). He submitted that without holding an enquiry, issue 2 regarding valuation has been decided. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that there is already a finding recorded that the objection regarding court fees has been decided by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and therefore, no interference is called for. 4 I have considered the submissions. The basic contention raised by the petitioner in the present application seeking return of the plaint is that the suit has been undervalued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction and in fact the suit ought to have been valued at the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. The contention is that if the suit is properly valued, the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) will not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In view of the mandate of section 8 of the said Act, the Court was under an obligation to hold an enquiry as regards the valuation of the suit. It appears that the suit was instituted in the principal Court having original Civil jurisdiction which is the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangli. It appears that the Nazir of the Court while scrutinising the plaint raised an objection regarding valuation. At the stage of scrutiny, it appears that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has dealt with the objection raised by the Nazir of the Court and has ordered registration of the plaint. However, there is no enquiry held under section 8 of the said Act. While holding such enquiry, the Court is required to give an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence as may be necessary for such enquiry. Without holding statutory enquiry, no finding could have been rendered on the issue of valuation of the suit. 5 If after holding an enquiry, the court finds that 3 the correct valuation of the suit exceeds the pecuniary limit of the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), it is obvious that the trial Court is bound to pass an appropriate and consequential order in accordance with law. 6 Hence, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order : i) Impugned order is quashed and set aside in so far as application at Exhibit-32 for return of the plaint is concerned. ii)The trial Court is directed to hold an enquiry under section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act,1959 after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce relevant evidence. The enquiry shall be concluded within a period of 12 weeks from the date on which writ of this order is received by the trial Court. iii)After holding an enquiry, the learned trial Judge will pass an appropriate and consequential order as observed in iv) this order. v) The application at Exhibit-32 stands disposed of in above terms. vi)It is obvious that all contentions of the parties on merits of issue of valuation of the suit are expressly kept open. vii)Petition is partly allowed in above terms. JUDGE 4