HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2605 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner-plaintiff filed this revision aggrieved by the docket order dated 5.7.2011 passed in the suit bearing G.L.No.4059 of 2011 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, returning the suit filed for injunction on the ground that the property involved in the case is about Ac.80.00 of land and the Court cannot assess the value within the pecuniary limits, even if lesser value per acre is taken. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contends that the suit itself is filed for injunction simplicitor and the Court fee is paid under Section 26(c ) of the APCF and SV Act, and the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is taken at Rs.25,000/- and hence, the Court below ought not to have returned the suit. The averments in the plaint disclose that the plaintiff took various extents of land on lease for seven years agreeing to pay Rs.1,50,000/-p.a., to Arikepudi Venkata Rama Sastry; Rs.1,40,000/- to Arikepudi Prasad; Rs.1,70,000/- to Arikepudi Gandhi, Rs.1,20,000/- to Arikepudi Nanditha; Rs.1,40,000/- to Arikepudi Sunil and Rs.1,30,000/- to Arikepudi Ravi. If all the amounts are taken into consideration, the value of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court. As can be seen from the pleadings in the suit, the petitioner- plaintiff is seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant is one of the shareholders of the suit schedule property and he went away from the house of the landlords of the plaintiff and he proposed to take the plaint schedule property on lease, for which the landlords of the plaintiff refused and on that, the 1st defendant with the help of the 2nd defendant’s family is trying to interfere with the plaint schedule property. When the suit is filed against the 1st defendant, who is having a share in the suit schedule property and who has not admittedly leased out the same to the plaintiff, the suit is to be valued basing on the share value of the 1st defendant, for the purpose of jurisdiction. But the plaintiff failed to value the suit properly. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned herein. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner-plaintiff is at liberty to value the suit properly and present the same before the appropriate Court. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:29th July, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2605 OF 2011 29.7.2011 Nn