(rane) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2008 IN S.C.SUIT NO. 6080 OF 1999 Karunapati Sahadev Tiwari .......Applicant Verus Vishnu Shankar Solankar ........Respondent Mr.D.Dwidevi i/by.D.Dwidevi & Co., adv.for applicant. Respondent and advocate absent, though served. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 8 th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Civil Revision Application is preferred against the order dated 7th November, 2006 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court holding that the plaintiff has undervalued the suit and paid inadequate court-fees. The petitioner has been directed to value the suit properly, so that the court can consider the question of pecuniary jurisdiction. 2. For the purpose of deciding the question of valuation of the suit property and the pecuniary jurisdiction based thereon, the court has to look into only the averments made in the plaint. The court is not required to look into the claims made in the Written Statement, nor is it required to look into the (rane) 2 rebuttal in the written statement. 3. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the suit premises i.e. Room no.16, Shivprerna Chawl, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Jogeshwari (East), since the year 1994. He contends in the plaint that the respondent who is a close friend had shown a space to the petitioner and told him that the petitioner may erect a structure at the place at his own expense for his residence. Later the respondent came to the petitioner demanding half share in the constructed structure. Therefore, the petitioner handed over a portion admeasuring 8' X 10” to the respondent and retained possession of the balance half portion. In the year 1999, the respondent is alleged to have come to the petitioner alongwith some documents with stamp papers and obtained signatures. The petitioner does not know English language and as such is not aware of the contents of the documents. Since then, the respondent started threatening the petitioner of forcible dispossession from half portion of the premises in his occupation. On these allegations, the petitioner sought relief of declaration, that the documents on which the signatures of the petitioner were obtained by the respondent are sham and colourable documents and the same are not to be acted upon. The second relief sought by the petitioner is to restrain the respondent from dispossessing him from the premises without following due process of law. 4. The petitioner has valued the suit at Rs.600/- under Section.6(iv)(j) of the (rane) 3 Bombay Court Fees Act and paid the court fees accordingly. Para-14 of the plaint which contains the averments as regards valuation, does not elaborate the basis of valuation. The learned Trial Judge has found fault with this valuation. According to the impugned order, the suit would be governed by Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, whereunder the petitioner has to to value the suit premises at the market value of the property. The reason for this opinion as stated in the impugned order, reads as follows :- “2..... He claims that the defendant obtained some documents and obtained his signature without explaining the contents thereof and claims declaration that the documents are sham and colourable and consequential perpetual injunction. In the written statement the defendant has denied the ownership of the plaintiff. In view of the pleading, this court is required to decide the issue of ownership. The plaintiff cannot get perpetual injunction without getting the declaration of ownership. Hence, the suit is not governed by Section 6(iv)(j) of Bombay Court Fee Act. It is governed by Section 6(iv)(d). The plaintiff is called upon to value the suit on market value of the property and to pay the court fee.......” 5. The relief of declaration sought by the petitioner is not of declaration of his ownership or title to the suit premises. Had the petitioner sought such relief, the learned Judge would have right been right in applying Section 6(iv) (d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act to the suit and direct the petitioner to value the suit at the market value. 6. The learned Trial Judge has, instead of limiting himself to consideration (rane) 4 of the averments in the plaint alone, has looked into the defence in the written statement of denial of claim of ownership of the appellant. This is not correct. In order to decide the question of valuation of the suit property and the jurisdiction based thereon, the court is required to look into only the averments in the plaint. 7. The first relief sought in the suit is of declaration that the documents on which the signatures of the petitioner were obtained are sham and bogus documents and the same cannot be acted upon. Since the petitioner is not aware of the contents of the documents, he has to value this prayer under the residuary provision of Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. As regards, the second relief sought by the petitioner of injunction to restrain the respondent from dispossessing him without following due process of law, the same would be covered by Article 23(f) of Schedule-II to the Bombay Court Fees Act. It provides for payment of ad-valorem fee as if the amount or value of the subject matter was Rs.300/- in case of a suit which is not otherwise provided for and the subject matter of which is not capable of being estimated in money value. The permanent relief of limited injunction sought by the petitioner is not otherwise provided for under the Bombay Court Fees Act. In the circumstances, both the prayers in the suit are to be separately valued under the provisions of Section 6(iv)(j) and Article 23(f) of Schedule- II to the Bombay Court Fees Act. In the circumstances, the valuation done (rane) 5 by the petitioner is correct. Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 7th November, 2006 is set aside. The parties to bear their own costs. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J] (rane) 6