A.P.C.F.& S.V. ACT - IF THE VALUE OF PROPERTY IS INCREASED PENDING SUIT, COURT FEE NEVER INCREASED OUSTING THE PECUNIARY JURISDICTION BY THE DATE OF SUIT = filed O.S.No.2244 of 2009 in the Court of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioner. during the pendency of the suit, the appellate authority enhanced the fair rent to Rs.11,000/- per month and annual rental value of the building would exceed Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby, the trial Court ceases to have the pecuniary jurisdiction ?.= The value of the suit was shown on the basis that the rent for the premises is Rs.7,000/- per month. =The value of a suit has to be determined, taking into account the state of affairs that are obtaining as on the date of presentation of the suit. It is not uncommon that during the pendency of the suit, the value of the property undergoes change and, in a given case, it may cross the pecuniary limits of the Court. On that account, the Court, which otherwise had the pecuniary jurisdiction when the suit was filed, does not cease to have the jurisdiction. For instance, if the value of the property, as regards which the relief is claimed in a suit, is Rs.90,000/- as on the date of filing of the suit and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is upto Rs.1,00,000/-, the Courts does not lose the jurisdiction, if during the pendency of the suit the value of the property has increased beyond Rs.1,00,000/-. If such an approach is adopted, several complications would arise and the parties as well as the Courts would be put to serious hardship. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter in refusing to frame an additional issue pertaining to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, since the only basis for the application was an order passed by the appellate authority during the pendency of the suit.

REPORTED / PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9800

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY            

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6052 of 2010  

03-04-2013

Bhikam Chand

C.Vittal Rao

Counsel for Petitioner:  Mr. Vedula Srinivas

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Dhilip Kumar Shirodkar

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?CITATIONS:

ORDER:


The petitioner is the tenant of the respondent in respect of commercial premises
at Osmangunj, Hyderabad. The respondent instituted proceedings under Section 4
of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for fixation
of fair rent of the premises.  The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent for the
premises at Rs.7,000/- per month.  The petitioner, on the one hand, and the
respondent, on the other hand, filed appeals before the appellate authority, not
satisfied with the determination made by the Rent Controller.

When the appeals were pending, the respondent filed O.S.No.2244 of 2009 in the
Court of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for eviction of
the petitioner.  The value of the suit was shown on the basis that the rent for
the premises is Rs.7,000/- per month.  The petitioner filed written statement
and issues were framed.

At a later point of time, the petitioner filed I.A.No.802 of 2010 with a prayer
to frame additional issues.  It was pleaded that during the pendency of the
suit, the appellate authority enhanced the fair rent to Rs.11,000/- per month
and annual rental value of the building would exceed Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby,
the trial Court ceases to have the pecuniary jurisdiction. The application was
opposed by the respondent.  The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order,
dated 16.09.2010.  Hence, this revision.

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Dhilip
Kumar Shirodkar, learned counsel for the respondent.

The value of a suit has to be determined, taking into account the state of
affairs that are obtaining as on the date of presentation of the suit.  It is
not uncommon that during the pendency of the suit, the value of the property
undergoes change and, in a given case, it may cross the pecuniary limits of the
Court. On that account, the Court, which otherwise had the pecuniary
jurisdiction when the suit was filed, does not cease to have the jurisdiction.
For instance, if the value of the property, as regards which the relief is
claimed in a suit, is Rs.90,000/- as on the date of filing of the suit and the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is upto Rs.1,00,000/-, the Courts does not
lose the jurisdiction, if during the pendency of the suit the value of the
property has increased beyond Rs.1,00,000/-. If such an approach is adopted,
several complications would arise and the parties as well as the Courts would be
put to serious hardship. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter in
refusing to frame an additional issue pertaining to the pecuniary jurisdiction
of the Court, since the only basis for the application was an order passed by
the appellate authority during the pendency of the suit.

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this Civil Revision Petition shall
stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.