Ranvir Chaudhary v. Arun Kumar Singh And ORS

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.849 of 2016 (2) dt.17-10-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.849 of 2016 ====================================================== Ranvir Chaudhary .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Arun Kumar Singh & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dronacharya For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 17-10-2016 Heard learned counsel, Mr. Dronacharya, appearing for the petitioner.

2.

Perused the impugned order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the Sub-Judge-II, Patna City in T.S. No. 31 of 2013, whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner to decide the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and payment of ad-valorem court fee thereon. 3.

The suit has been filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession of the suit property. The suit has been valued at Rs. 51,000/- The petitioner filed application that the valuation is more than Rs. 81 Lakh and, therefore, the plaintiff should have directed to pay the ad-valorem court fee after correcting the valuation of the suit property.

4.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.849 of 2016 (2) dt.17-10-2016 the court below considered this fact and then held that this matter can be decided at the time of hearing of the suit and in fact valuation is found more than Rs. 51,000/- then the plaintiff shall be directed to pay ad-valorem court fee.

5.

Admittedly, defence of the plaintiff only the valuation of the suit property cannot be decided at this stage. This may be an issue in the suit but that issue is not an issue of law under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. The court can decide the issue of law only when it touches jurisdiction of the Court and if the suit is barred. So far pecuniary jurisdiction of the case is concerned, the suit is pending before the Sub-Judge, who has got unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. So far payment of ad-valorem court fee is concerned, it is between the plaintiff and the state. There is no question of prejudice to the petitioner arises in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1961 SC 1299. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.

Brajesh/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) U