Dr. Sanjay S/O. Goraknath Khemuka v. Dilip S/O Dinkar Mandpe And Others

(1) caf 3219-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO. 3219 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.2741 OF 2024 Dr. Sanjay S/o Goraknath Khemuka Vs.

Dilip S/o Dinkar Mandpe and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Z.Z. Haq, and Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for appellant in FAST No. 2741/2024 Shri N.D. Khamborkar, Advocate for appellant in FA No. 1096/2024 Shri Rahul Tajne, Advocate for respondent CORAM :

SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : 27.02.2026 Vide order dated 27.02.2026, we had dictated the operative part of the order, and the application is rejected. However, the reasons are recorded as hereinunder : 2.

This application is filed under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent No.1, i.e., the original plaintiff for the return of appeal. As can be seen from the averments made in the said application, the appellant before this Court is the original defendant No.5, who is challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 372/2010 dated 31.10.2023, cancelling the sale deed executed by the

(2) caf 3219-2025 defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.5/appellant. It can further be seen from the said application that the relief that is cancellation of the sale deed was valued at Rs 41,27,000/-, which is the value of the sale deed. It is therefore the contention of the applicant, i.e., the respondent No.1 herein, that the valuation being less than 1,00,00,000/- the present appeal would lie before the Court of District Judge since the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court is beyond 1,00,00,000/- and the appeals of which valuation is less than 1,00,00,000/- lie before the District Judge. On this ground return of the plaint is sought. 3.

We have heard Shri Rahul Tajne, learned Counsel for the applicant in the present application, i.e., the original respondent No.1 Dilip. The learned Counsel for the applicant reiterates the contentions made in the present application. He also points us out a note with the appeal memo to buttress his contention. He submits that, as can be seen from the said note, the appeal is valued for the purposes of court fee at Rs.41,27,000/- and the requisite court fees of Rs.63,630/- are paid. Furthermore, it can be seen that for the purpose of jurisdiction before this Court, the appeal is valued at Rs.4,75,00,000/-. It is thus stated that, the appellant in the present appeal has restricted the challenge to the part of the judgment which affects his rights. He places reliance on Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act to submit that as per the provisions of the said section, the valuation for the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is one and the same in certain types of suits. He

(3) caf 3219-2025 therefore submits that the present appeal would lie before the District Judge and not before this Court. 4.

Per contra, countering the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the applicant/respondent No.1, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the application is misconceived and meritless. He submits that the issue has been determined in a catena of judgments and places reliance on 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 969, Dilip Kisanrao Khasbage Vs. Leeladhar S/o Pandurang Ganorkar and 2016

(3) Mh.L.J. 809, Dr. Pramod Prakashchandra Banait Vs. Dr. Avinash Prakashchandra Banait. By relying on the judgment of Dilip referred supra and more particularly paragraph No.5 thereof, the learned Counsel Shri Agnihotri submits that the "subject-matter" appearing in Section 22 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act necessarily means subject-matter of the suit and not subject-matter of the appeal. Furthermore, relying on the judgment of Dr. Pramod referred supra, the learned Single Judge of this Court by relying on earlier Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kazi Syed Saifuddin vs. Kasturchand Abhayrajji Golchha, 1999

(2) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 675, has held that once a suit is valued and jurisdiction of the Court is determined when the suit is instituted, same would be the valuation for the subsequent proceedings in the suit. He therefore submits that the question is no more res integra and the application is therefore liable to be rejected.

(4) caf 3219-2025 5.

We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the provisions of the Bombay Civil Courts Act and the Suits Valuation Act. As has been held by this Court in the case of Dilip referred supra, the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court is found not dependent on the fluctuating valuation of the claim in appeal. The valuation of claim in appeal is held to have relevance only for the purposes of court fee. The valuation for the purposes of determining jurisdiction and for the purpose of court fee are distinct factors. They need not be identical or common. Furthermore, in the judgment of Dr. Pramod referred supra, the learned Single Judge of this Court, by relying on the earlier Full Bench held on the same lines.

It is further held that the valuation of the suit would determine the Court of Appeal. The said valuation of the suit would govern the appeal, and for the purpose of the forum of appeal, the same criteria would apply. The forum of appeal is determined with reference to the value of the suit and not the amount decreed. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, with which we entirely agree. We do not find any merit in the application, and the same is accordingly rejected. The application is rejected and disposed of as such.

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Jayashree..