SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows: The opposite party instituted against the petitioners a suit for the following and ancillary reliefs: i) A decree for declaration that the plaintiff/deity is the owner and occupier of the suit property as described in the Schedule 'A' of the plaint; ii) A further decree for declaration that the 'B' schedule described instruments are all vague, illegal, invalid, fraudulent and collusive instruments and both are void ab-initio; iii) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating, encumbering and also from creating any third party interest in respect of the A schedule property and further from giving any effect to the same.
(2.) In the said suit, the petitioners entered appearance and contested by filing a written statement, inter alia taking the plea that the court below did have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the suit.
(3.) The petitioners also filed an application challenging such pecuniary jurisdiction, seeking determination of the dispute as to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court by revising the valuation of the suit, also seeking determination of the correct valuation by holding enquiry, and consequential order of return of plaint.;