HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Civil Revision Petition Nos.266, 633 & 693 of 2013 Date: 1.9.2014 C.R.P. No. 266 of 2013 Between:
Gudi Malla Reddy, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.
And Pingle Purushotham Reddy, Represented by his Special G.P.A. Holder, Pingle Keshava Reddy, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda. Warangal District and others.
…Petitioner ... Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Civil Revision Petition Nos.266, 633 & 693 of 2013 Common Order:
These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the common order dated 4.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in the interlocutory applications filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C., seeking return of the plaints for presentation before the appropriate Court. To elaborate, the individual defendants in the three suits, O.S. Nos. 759 of 2004, 721 of 2004 and 1242 of 2004 filed the subject I.As., being I.A. Nos. 1201 of 2009, 1359 of 2009 and 1360 of 2009 in O.S. Nos. 759 of 2004, 721 of 2004 and 1242 of 2004 respectively, stating that the common plaintiff in the three suits had under valued the suit properties and that proper fixation of the value of the suit properties would take the suits out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
By the common order under revision, the Court below dismissed the I.As. with the observation that the plaintiff should pay deficit court fee in O.S. Nos. 721 of 2004 and 759 of 2004 on the market value enclosed along with the plaint at the time of institution.
Perusal of the common order reflects that both the parties produced market value certificates from the Registration Department in support of their rival claims. As per the Market Value Certificate of 2004, relied upon by the plaintiff in the suits, the value of the suit property was such that the litigation came within the ambit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. However, the defendants in the suits filed a separate Market Value Certificate obtained by them in the year 2009 relating to the market value in the year 2004. These documents were filed along with the subject I.As. As per these Market Value Certificates, the value of the suit properties, determined with reference to the year 2004, would have been in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. It was therefore necessary that the Court below go into this aspect of the matter minutely as it went to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Court. However, the order under revision demonstrates that except for referring to the later Market Value Certificate of 2009, the Court below did not choose to record reasons as to why the same was not acted upon. As these Certificates were also procured from the Registration Department, their authenticity could not be doubted. Though it is stated that certain over writings are contained in the said Market Value Certificates, the Court below did not eschew them from consideration on that ground. In the event, if the Court below had any doubt as to the proper market value in the year 2004, given the contradictory Certificates produced from the Registration Department, it was for the Court below to take suitable steps for resolving such contradictions by summoning the concerned officials of the Registration Department. The approach adopted by the Court below in discarding one set of Certificates without reason therefore cannot be countenanced. As stated earlier, this issue had an impact on the very jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suits.
The common order dated 4.12.2012 is accordingly set aside and the I.As. are remitted for consideration afresh in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this order. No order as to costs.
SANJAY KUMAR,J Date: 1st September, 2014 pnb