JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for appellant and also the learned counsel for respondent with regard to the maintainability of this Miscellaneous First Appeal before this Court. Admittedly, the impugned order which is in challenge is passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, at Nelamangala in O.S.No.5/2022. The application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was allowed and the impugned order of injunction has been granted, the same is challenged in this appeal. The office has raised the objection. This Court while considering the matter, kept open the maintainability and passed an interim order of status quo. 2. Now, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that this Miscellaneous First Appeal is not maintainable before this Court. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction before the Civil Judge Junior Division and Miscellaneous Appeal lies before Senior division and not Miscellaneous First Appeal lies before this Court. 3. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that this Court has to look into the proviso of Section 52 of the Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the very proviso of Section 50(2) of the said Act, which reads as follows : Section 50(2): “ In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint ”. 4. The counsel referring this proviso of Section 50(2) of Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 would vehemently contend that though the suit is filed before Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and the suit is valued under Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and according to the counsel, the purpose of jurisdiction, the matter has to be valued on market value and for the purpose of the Court Fee also to be separately valued and while valuing the property, both aspects to be taken note of and if it is plaint is silent, then Section 50(2) of Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 applies. 5. 5. Having perused the proviso of Section 50(2) of Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, it is stated that in a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint. Hence, the counsel for appellant would vehemently contend that appeal is maintainable. 6. The counsel in support of his argument also relied upon the judgment of this Court AIR 1972 MYS 242 in case of Subrao Ramba Ravalu Kedari and others V/s Kallappa Nana Kadapure and another wherein discussion made in paragraph No.4 and though citation goes against him, since the Division Bench Court considered the earlier order passed in CRP.No.1791/1969 reported in AIR 1972 MYS 163 that the value for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction with regard to matters falling on the clause (c) of Section 26 of the Act should be same as the value at which relieves valued by the plaintiff are Rs.100/- whichever may be the higher. The counsel in support of his argument contend that it has to be valued for the purpose of valuation with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction and also for the Court Fee. Hence, the appeal is maintainable. 7. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that suit is valued under Section 26(c) of Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act. The value of the suit is also Rs.1,000/- and accordingly, Court fee is paid and suit is also filed before the Civil Judge (Jn. Division). The counsel would vehemently contend that Section 50(2) of Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act is not applicable. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the very proviso of clause (1) of Section 50 wherein held that in a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same. The counsel referring this proviso of Section 50(1) and brought to notice of this Court Section 26(c), in a suit for injunction the Court fee payable under Section 26(c) and the said proviso says in any other case, whether the subject-matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees [one thousand], whichever is higher and hence the counsel would vehemently contend that the suit is valued under Section 26(c) and also suit is filed before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and appeal is not maintainable before this Court. 8. In support of his argument also he relied upon judgment reported in AIR 1972 MYS 163 in case of B.S. Nagaraj V/s S. Manjappa and others and the said judgment also discussed in the judgment relied upon by the appellant’s counsel as referred above i.e., reported in AIR 1972 MYS 242 and the counsel brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.8 wherein this Court held that the ratio of the decision equally applies to the instant case. In that view, since the relief sought in the suit has been valued at Rs.100/- for the purpose of payment of Court Fees, that alone could be valued for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court. The suit, therefore, ought to have been filed before the competent Munsiff’s Court. 9. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in (2015) SCC ONLINE KAR 5031 in case of Sri. Neelagiriyappa and others V/s Channabasavva wherein also this Court having considered the judgment of AIR 1972 MYS 163 discussed in paragraph No.6 with regard to Section 26. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.4 and also paragraph No.7 wherein also this Court held that plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of Court Fee under Section 26(a) by valuing it at Rs.1,000/- and has paid the Court fee accordingly. Section 26(a) of the Act would be attracted where the plaintiff alleges his right in the property has been denied or where an issue is framed regarding his title. Section 26(a) of the Act would be attracted where the plaintiff alleges his right in the property has been denied or where an issue is framed regarding his title. In the instant case, plaintiff claims that he has right over the property and asserted his possession over the suit schedule property and as such, the Trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court have rightly held that it is required to be valued under Section 26(c) and the said provision is attracted to the facts of the present case and accordingly, held that the plaintiff cannot split the valuation of the suit property for the purposes of payment of Court fee and jurisdiction by separately and distinctly. Hence, the counsel for respondent would vehemently contend that very contention of the appellant’s counsel cannot be accepted. 9. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and also having considering the material available on record and also it is an admitted fact that suit is filed before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and also on perusal of the valuation slip, suit is valued for the purpose of Court Fee and also the jurisdiction as Rs.1,000/- and Court Fee of Rs.25/- is paid invoking Section 26(c) of Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act. It is also not in dispute that impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn). Having perused the proviso of Section 50 and Section 26(c) of Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, when the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and inter-alia sought for relief of temporary injunction, the Court has to take note of for the purpose of jurisdiction, when the suit is valued for Rs.1,000/-, the Court has to take note of the same. This Court in the judgment AIR 1972 MYS LJ 163 and also in the judgment referred above (2015) SCC ONLINE KAR 5031 having relied upon the earlier judgment reported in AIR 1972 MYS 163 comes to the conclusion that for the purpose of jurisdiction is concerned when the suit is filed for the relief of injunction that too with regard to his possession and right over the property and has asserted his possession over the suit schedule property as such, the Trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court has rightly held that it is required to be valued under Section 26(c) and said proviso is attracted to the facts of the present case and accordingly held that plaintiff cannot split the valuation of the suit property for the purpose of payment of Court Fee and jurisdiction by separately and distinctly. The very contention of the appellant’s counsel that suit was filed in the year 2021 and notification is also produced before this Court of the year 2019. The value of the property is Rs.35,00,00,000/- of the site measuring 60 x 40 sq. ft. When such being the case, the very appeal is maintainable. The said contention of the counsel cannot be accepted in view of the judgment relied upon by the respondent’s counsel i.e., AIR 1972 MYS LJ 163 and also the other judgments and also even the judgment relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel i.e., AIR 1972 MYS LJ 242 wherein also the Court has taken note of the order passed by this Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1972 MYS LJ 163 and the very contention that for the purpose of valuation and for the purpose of Court fee, there must be a distinct valuation and the said contention cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the appellant’s counsel that the appeal is maintainable. 10. Now, with regard to the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appeal is not maintainable before this Court. Hence, the appellant has to approach the appropriate Court for the consideration of the impugned order by filing an appeal. 10. Now, with regard to the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appeal is not maintainable before this Court. Hence, the appellant has to approach the appropriate Court for the consideration of the impugned order by filing an appeal. This Court has directed to maintain Status Quo and have counsel submits the same may be continued for a limited purpose and he contend that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2014) 13 SCC 646 in case of Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. and others V/s Ram Parshotam Mittal and others wherein also the Apex Court in paragraph No.16 comes to the conclusion that it is very clear that if a petition is not maintainable and is ultimately withdrawn, the Court should not continue interim relief for a period beyond withdrawal of the writ petition. However, the aforesaid observation is not apply to a case where the matter is heard on merits and after considering the facts of the case, the Court permits withdrawal of a case. In such a case, the Court is at liberty to extend the relief or can grant interim relief for a limited period after recording reasons for the same. In the case on hand, the matter has not been heard on merits. However, taking into note of this Court has already observed while passing an order of Status Quo that in between the very same parties, already one more suit is pending i.e., O.S.No.392/2021, the same is also pending for consideration and there cannot be two orders in respect of the very same property. When such being the case, having considered the same, this Court granted Status Quo order at the time of filing of this appeal and the same may be extended. 11. The counsel appearing for respondent also brought to notice of this Court that the injunction granted in favour of one Ravikumar in O.S.No.392/2021 who is the GPA holder of respondent herein and also taking into of the schedule mentioned in the earlier suit in O.S.No.392/2021 and also the suit filed by the respondent, both are in different boundaries and different plot number. When such being the case, the very passing of an order of Status Quo cannot be continued till consideration of the appeal to be filed before the appropriate Court. 12. When such being the case, the very passing of an order of Status Quo cannot be continued till consideration of the appeal to be filed before the appropriate Court. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The appellant is directed to present the appeal before the appropriate Court. (iii) If the counsel file the appeal immediately, the appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within one month from the date of appearance of both parties.