IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.842 of 2006. SUIT NO.842 of 2006. SUIT NO.842 of 2006. D-Link (India) Ltd. ..Plaintiff versus Arrow International Pvt. Ltd. ..Defendant Mr.B.N.Pujari for the Plaintiff Mr.S.K.Kaushik, Officer authorised by the defendant to appear on behalf of the Defendants is present in the Court. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 15th January, 2009. DATED : 15th January, 2009. DATED : 15th January, 2009. P.C. 1. Application under Order 23 Rule III r/w. Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure was tendered. It was submitted to the Court that this Court should pass a decree in terms of the said application. 2. I have checked the valuation aspect of the matter and the prayers. The plaintiffs have prayed for injunction in terms of prayer clause (a). Prayer clause (b) is as regards calling the defendants to tender the true and correct inventory of all the batteries etc. Prayer clause (c) is to seek an order as regards accounts. Prayer clause (d) relates to seeking certain articles in the -2- nature of batteries, invertors from the defendants. The plaintiffs have valued this suit at Rs.1000/- per prayer i.e. clause (a), (b), (c) and (d) under Section 6(4)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. It is clear that the valuation of the suit under Section 6(4)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act is improper, particularly when the plaintiffs are seeking return of certain articles as set out in prayer clause (d). At the same time plaintiffs have valued prayer clause (d) at Rs.1000/-. 2. As it is, total valuation of the plaint turns out to be Rs.4000/-. As such this Court shall have no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Accordingly, I am inclined to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for filing it to the appropriate Court. Hence the Order. ORDER . It is hereby ordered that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit based on the valuation at Rs.4000/-. It is hereby ordered that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for filing it to the appropriate Court. -3- . 11.2.2009 is the date fixed for return of the plaint. . Prothonotary & Senior Master shall return the plaint to the plaintiffs for filing it to the proper Court. Application as aforesaid is taken on record and it is filed and no Orders are passed thereon. . I have perused that on record there is a notice of motion No.944 of 2006. In view of return of plaint to the plaintiff for filing it before the appropriate court, this notice of motion same is disposed of with no order as to costs. . Plaintiffs are at liberty to take out interim relief application in the appropriate Court. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)