Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 197 (JK)

Ibrahim Mugloo v. Kulsuma

2008-05-16

HAKIM IMTIYAZ HUSSAIN

body2008
1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the Order of the trial Court under revision. 3. On perusal of the averments in the plaint I find the trial Court has not properly looked into and considered the matter. 4. The Court has returned its finding on the following preliminary issue: whether the suit is not properly valued and trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the present suit. OPD 5. Trial Court has found that the suit falls under Section 7 (iv) (c) Court Fees Act as such it is properly valued and the Court has the jurisdiction to try the case. It is against this order-dated 2.4.2007 that the present revision has been filed by the petitioners-defendants. 6. Para 13 of the (amended) plaint which deals with the valuation reads as under: `13. That the valuation of suit is fixed at Rs. 12.50 for purpose of jurisdiction and for purposes of injunction is fixed at Rs. 12.50. 7. Section 8 of the Suit valuation Act which deals with Court fee value and jurisdictional value in the suits, provides as under: 8. Court-fee value and jurisdictional value to be the same in certain suits Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act. Section 7, paragraphs (v), (vi) and (ix), and paragraph (x) clause(d) court-fees are payable and valorem under the Court-fees Act, the value as determinable for the computation of Court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. 8. Value for the purpose of jurisdiction under the section should be the same as the value fixed for payment of Court-fees. The effect of the provisions of the section, as has been held by the Supreme Court in S. Rm.Ar.S.Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Ram Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1958 SC 245, is to make the value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of Court-fee. The Supreme Court in the said case observed that `once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for court-fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court-fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. The value for court-fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court-fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. The result is that it is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of court-fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa. 9. Thus first a plaintiff has to value the relief sought for the purposes of Court fees and the value so fixed will determine the value for jurisdiction. In the present case the plaintiffs have not fixed any value for the purposes of Court fees at all. So the value fixed for the purpose of jurisdiction is of no consequence at all. 10. Under Section 8, the valuation for purposes of Court fees determines the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction also. The determination of the value for the payment of Court fees automatically determines the value for the purposes of jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Act. 11. Since Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act requires that the plaintiff should first value his claim for the purpose of court fee and provides for the determination of the value for jurisdiction on the basis of such claim, fixing value of the suit for jurisdiction or for a particular relief will not meet the requirements of the section unless such valuation for Court fee is made. Thus under Section 8 the proper method is to value the suit for the purpose of Court fee first and then to take that value for the purpose of jurisdiction. 12. Though the plaintiff has been given discretion to value his relief, the plaintiff has not an absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on such relief and where the plaintiff deliberately underestimates the value or fixes the valuation in a casual or routine way, the Court can examine the correctness of the valuation and revise it. Reliance in this may be placed on Tara Devi v. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj AIR 1987 SC 2085. 13. Plaintiff in the present case has not valued the suit for the purpose of court fee, so the value fixed by him for jurisdiction cannot be taken note of. Reliance in this may be placed on Tara Devi v. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj AIR 1987 SC 2085. 13. Plaintiff in the present case has not valued the suit for the purpose of court fee, so the value fixed by him for jurisdiction cannot be taken note of. It is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of Court fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit. When the plaintiffs have not valued the suit for Court fee at all how the trial Court found the jurisdiction fixed was proper. The trial Court has, therefore, fell into an error while deciding the issue in favour of the plaintiff. 14. Accordingly this revision is allowed. The record is returned to the Court below. 15. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 1.6.2008. The Court may now proceed with the case in accordance with the procedure.