IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.3829 of 2007 Between: M/s. Leo Granex, represented by its Proprietrix, Smt. Surapaneni Rani ..Petitioner AND M/s. Pavillion Granites, reptd by its Proprietrix, Smt. Surapaneni Latha, and others .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree in C.M.A.No.10 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, dated 6-4-2005, by which the order and decreetal order in I.A.No.296 of 2003 in O.S.No.95 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajam were confirmed. The revision petitioner herein filed O.S.No.95 of 2003 before the Junior Civil Judge, Rajam, for a permanent injunction from carrying on the quarry operations in the suit schedule property from 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2005 and also for restraining the 2nd defendant therein from transportation of granite blocks and for restraining the 1st defendant therein from interfering with the excavation of granite by the plaintiff etc., based on an agreement dated 3-2-1999. The agreement was claimed to be entitling the revision petitioner to be in possession and enjoyment of the subject property for two years from 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2005. While so, the 1st defendant filed I.A.No.296 of 2003 questioning the maintainability of the suit with reference to the jurisdiction of the trial Court contending that the relief sought for in effect and substance amounted to specific performance of the alleged agreement, the consideration for which would come to about Rs.5.40 crores for the period of two years. The court fee paid was, hence, contended to be grossly inadequate and if the suit were to be properly valued, it will be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court. The plaintiff resisted the request of the 1st defendant for return of the plaint on the ground that he continues to be in possession of the subject property and he never alleged any breach of contract to compel him to seek specific performance. His approach to the Civil Court is only to prevent the 1st defendant from attempting to commit the breach of agreement on which appropriate and correct court fee was paid on a proper valuation. The suit and the interim applications are, hence, claimed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner to be maintainable. The trial Court, however, differed with the revision petitioner and agreed with the 1st respondent in concluding that the issue has to be decided as a preliminary issue with reference to Section 11 (2) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, (for short “the Act”) and referring to various precedents cited before it, the trial Court felt that the property worth about Rs.5.10 crores for carrying on quarry operations for two years was grossly undervalued and directed return of the plaint for presentation to proper court as it felt that it will have no pecuniary jurisdiction in case of correct valuation. In C.M.A.No.10 of 2003, the impugned order was passed agreeing with the trial Court and opining that the grant of either permanent or temporary injunctions as prayed for would amount to specific performance of the agreement itself and it also observed that no specific calculation of damages were claimed in the suit. The appellate court considered that the plaintiff, who paid Rs.8.10 lakhs to the 1st defendant by way of cheque under the agreement as per his claim and intended to maintain status quo regarding his possession as per the agreement through this suit, has undervalued the suit. The Appellate court also was of the opinion that on the facts pleaded, the valuation has to be at least on Rs.5.40 crores per year and the suit is, therefore, grossly undervalued and hence, dismissed the C.M.A. with costs. The revision petitioner challenges the said order in this revision contending that the incorrect application of inappropriate provisions of the Act led to the orders in question ignoring the nature and content of the reliefs claimed by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner did not claim any compensation or damages on account of any breach of the agreement relied on and the valuation made and court fee paid by the plaintiff were initially accepted, while numbering the suit, which could not have been reopened even before the filing of a written statement. The value of the cheque issued by the plaintiff or the probable value of the subject matter of the agreement for two years could not have been the basis for the valuation in respect of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff and without framing the issues after the written statements are filed, a preliminary issue was sought to be decided in an interlocutory application. Hence, the revision petitioner desired the impugned order to be reversed. When the revision petition came up for hearing, the question about the continued maintainability of the revision petition after the expiry of the period of the agreement on which the plaint/suit for permanent injunction is based had arisen for consideration and Sri K.V. Subramanya Narusu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, had stated on instructions from the revision petitioner that in view of the expiry of the period of the subject agreement, the plaintiff intends to take appropriate steps for amendment of the plaint so as to convert it into a suit for damages and represent the same before the appropriate court having the pecuniary and territorial jurisdictions and jurisdiction over the subject matter. In the light of the said development, it becomes superfluous to determine the tenability or otherwise of the orders of the trial Court and the Appellate Court returning the plaint in O.S.No.95 of 2003 and it would be suffice to record the intention of the plaintiff and to clarify that on representation of the plaint so amended as one for damages before the court of competent jurisdiction, that court will have to consider the same for being taken on file and proceeded with in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations in the orders in I.A.No.296 of 2003 in O.S.No.95 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajam, dated 22-08-2003 or C.M.A.No.10 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, dated 6-4-2005. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly without costs subject to the above observations. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 03-09-2010 Ksn