V.C.MISRA,J. - (1.) SRI V. K. S. Chaudhry, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Pranav OJha, advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri G. N. Verma, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri S. O. P. Agrawal, and Dr. Madhu Tandon, advocates on behalf of the respondents have appeared.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that rival claimants have been indulging in long drawn litigations from 1953 to the office of the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath (also called Jyotish Peeth) and as time passed by their successors locked horns. The present Original Suit No. 513 of 1989 was filed by Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati for permanent injunction restraining installation ceremony of Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati as Jagatguru Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth which was scheduled to be held on 15.11.1989 along with consequential injunction that he may be restrained from using the 'danda', 'chhatra', 'chanwar' and 'singhasan' of the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth. The trial court refused ex parte Injunction and on 15.11.1989 Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati was duly installed as Jagatguru Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth and since then has been acting as such till date. The Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Allahabad, vide order dated 27.8.1998, rejected the application for deciding preliminary Issues in the suit relating to the Jurisdiction. Revision filed against the order dated 27.8.1998, was dismissed by the District Judge vide order dated 18.9.1998 on the ground that it was an interlocutory order and revision did not lie against such order but observed that since issues had yet to be framed the preliminary question of Jurisdiction etc. should be decided before proceeding with the suit. A suit was filed by the respondent No. 2 plaintiff earlier also for the possession of the office and its properties of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath (Jyotishpeeth) valued at Rs. 12,07,600 which is still pending. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) took up the issue of jurisdiction, which had to be decided first. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 7.9.2005 determined the valuation to be at least Rs. 12,07,600 (which was put by the plaintiff in his earlier suit) and directed plaint to be amended. Against this interlocutory order the plaintiff filed Civil Revision No. 601 of 2005. The learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Allahabad by his order dated 6.10.2005, held that this being a suit for injunction, the plaintiff was free to put any valuation and, therefore, decided the issue of valuation against the defendant -petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner -defendant filed the present writ petition for quashing of the said order dated 6.10.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Allahabad and restoration of the order dated 7.9.2005, passed by the learned trial court.
(3.) SRI V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned senior advocate on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 6.10.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Allahabad -respondent No. 1 is illegal without jurisdiction and mala fide, and that the suit for injunction is governed by Section 7, Clause (iv -B) of the Court Fees Act. As per Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act the suit for Injunction has to be valued for the purposes of pecuniary Jurisdiction at the market value of the property involved in or affected by or title which is affected by the reliefs sought and as such the valuation of the suit has been rightly fixed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Allahabad. Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and Section 7(iv -B) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read as under : Section 4. Suits Valuation Act, 1887: 4. Valuation of relief in certain suits relating to land. - -Suits mentioned in paragraphs IV (a) IV -A, IV -B, V, V -A, V -B, VI, VI -A, VIII and X -(d) of Section 7 and Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as in force for the time being in the Uttar Pradesh shall be valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at the market value of the property involved in or affected by, or the title to which is affected by the relief sought, or of the amount involved in or affected by or the title to which is affected by the relief sought, and such value shall in the case of land be deemed to be the value as determinable in accordance with the rules framed under Section 3. Section 7(iv -B) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 : 7. Computation of Fees payable in certain suits. (iv -B) In suits - - (a) For easement - -for a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise provided for) to arise out of land ; (b) For an injunction - -to obtain an injunction ; (c) To establish an adoption - - to establish an adoption or to obtain a declaration that an alleged adoption is valid. (d) To set aside an adoption - -to set aside an adoption or to obtain a declaration that an alleged adoption is invalid, or never, in fact, took place ; (e) To set aside an award other than awards mentioned in Section 8 - -to set aside an award not being an award mentioned in Section 8 ; according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint : (Provided that such amount shall not be less than one -fifth of the market -value of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought or Rs. 200 whichever is greater : Provided further, that in the case of suits falling under Clauses (a) and (b) the amount of court fee leviable shall in no case exceed Rs. 500.) Explanation 1. - -When the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property the market value of such property shall be deemed to be the value computed in accordance with Subsections (v), (v -A) or (v -B) of this section as the case may be. Explanation 2. - -In the case of suits - - (i) falling under Clauses (a) and (b), the property which is affected by the relief sought, and where properties of both the plaintiff and defendant are affected, the property of the plaintiff so affected, (ii) falling under Clauses (c) and (d), the property to which title by succession or otherwise may be diverted or affected by the alleged adoption, and (iii) falling under Clause (e), the property which forms the subject -matter of the award, shall be deemed to be the property involved in or affected by the relief sought within the meaning of the proviso to this sub -section.;