Case Note & Summary
The case involves two civil revision petitions filed by the defendants against orders passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti, dismissing their applications under Order 7 Rule 10(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in two suits for permanent injunction. The plaintiff, Kashinath S/o Nanappa Rathod, filed O.S. No.206/2015 and O.S. No.200/2015 against the defendants seeking permanent injunction in respect of non-agricultural land. The defendants appeared and filed written statements contending that the suits were not maintainable as the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction because the plaintiff had valued the suit at only Rs.1,000/- for non-agricultural land, which was grossly under-valued. The defendants filed IA Nos.2 and 3 under Order 7 Rule 10(1) read with Section 151 CPC praying for return of the plaint for presentation before the proper court. The trial court dismissed these applications. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present revision petitions under Section 115 CPC. The High Court, hearing both petitions together, observed that the valuation of the suit at Rs.1,000/- for non-agricultural land was clearly under-valued and the trial court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the applications and that the plaint ought to be returned for presentation before the proper court. Accordingly, the revision petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the trial court was directed to return the plaints in both suits for presentation before the proper court having pecuniary jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Order 7 Rule 10 CPC - Return of Plaint - The defendants filed IA under Order 7 Rule 10(1) CPC contending that the suit for permanent injunction in respect of non-agricultural land was under-valued at Rs.1,000/- and the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the application. The High Court held that the valuation of the suit at Rs.1,000/- for non-agricultural land was grossly under-valued and the trial court ought to have returned the plaint for presentation before the proper court having pecuniary jurisdiction. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 10(1) CPC for return of plaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, when the suit for permanent injunction in respect of non-agricultural land was valued at Rs.1,000/-.
Final Decision
The revision petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 02.03.2016 passed in O.S. No.206/2015 and O.S. No.200/2015 are set aside. The trial court is directed to return the plaints in both suits for presentation before the proper court having pecuniary jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Pecuniary jurisdiction
- valuation of suit
- Order 7 Rule 10 CPC
- Section 115 CPC
- under-valuation
- market value determination
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (12) 19
CRP Nos.100028/2016 & 100029/2016
Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi (for petitioners), Prashant S Kadadevar (for respondent)
Sri. Sunil S/o Kallappa Alagond and Smt. Shanta W/o Kallappa Alagond (in CRP 100028/2016); Sri. Hajaratali S/o Mainuddin Bagi (in CRP 100029/2016)
Sri. Kashinath S/o Nanappa Rathod
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petitions against orders dismissing applications for return of plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Remedy Sought
The defendants sought return of the plaint for presentation before the proper court having pecuniary jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The defendants contended that the suit for permanent injunction in respect of non-agricultural land was under-valued at Rs.1,000/- and the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed the applications (IA Nos.2 and 3) filed under Order 7 Rule 10(1) CPC.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10(1) CPC on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
The defendants argued that the suit for permanent injunction in respect of non-agricultural land was valued at Rs.1,000/- which was grossly under-valued and the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction.
The plaintiff opposed the application, but the judgment does not detail the plaintiff's arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
A suit for permanent injunction in respect of non-agricultural land valued at Rs.1,000/- is grossly under-valued and the trial court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction. The plaint ought to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10(1) CPC for presentation before the proper court.
Judgment Excerpts
These petitions are directed against the orders passed on IA Nos.2 and 3 filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 10(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure in OS Nos.206/2015 and 200/2015 respectively filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants...
The defendants appeared and filed written statement contending that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, since the plaintiff in respect of non–agricultural land, valued the suit at the market value of Rs.1,000/-.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S. No.206/2015 and O.S. No.200/2015 for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Banahatti. The defendants appeared and filed written statements and IA Nos.2 and 3 under Order 7 Rule 10(1) CPC for return of plaint. The trial court dismissed the IAs on 02.03.2016. The defendants filed the present revision petitions under Section 115 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which were heard together and disposed of by common order on 16.12.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Order 7 Rule 10(1), Section 151
