NITAI CHARAN BAGCHL Vs. SURESH CHANDRA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS, who are the appellants, instituted a suit, in the City Civil Court, Calcutta, inter alia, praying for a declaration that a mortgage decree passed by the High Court, in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, in suit No. 821 of 1946, against them was void and not binding upon them being tainted with and vitiated by fraud. There was a consequential prayer for permanently restraining the defendants decree-holders from proceeding with the execution of the decree. The plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs. 50/- for declaration and Rs. 5/- for injunction.

(2.) THE defendants, Nos. 1 to 3, who are some of the respondents filed an objection under section 14 of the City Civil Courts Act read with Order 7, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the City Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which should have been valued at above Rs. 30,000/-, the amount of the mortgage decree, and further that under section 5 (4) read with item 7 of the First Schedule of the City Civil Courts Act, that Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) SECTION 5 (4) and item No. 7 of the First Schedule of the City Civil Courts Act are quoted below:-