HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU OWP No. 1627/2013 Ram Saroop …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Anil Sethi, Adv. vs Dev Raj and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, Adv. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDER 10.03.2025 Oral: 1. This present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 104 of the Constitution of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir corresponding to Article 227 of the Constitution of India for transferring the suit tilted, “Bal Krishan Baru and others vs. Ram Saroop and another” pending before the court of Sub Judge, Jammu to any other court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that the statement of the plaintiff Dev Raj, who appeared as his own witness, was recorded on 14.09.2013 and his testimony revealed that at the filing of the suit, the value of the property was Rs. 12 lacs to 15 lacs. This Court had summoned the original record from the learned trial court for today only. A perusal of the same reveals that the learned trial court had framed the preliminary issue in respect of the valuation of the suit, which is extracted as under: 10 2 OWP No. 1627/2013 “whether the suit has not been property valued for the purpose of court fee, if so what is its effect on the suit? OPD” 2. The said issue was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 04.05.2005 in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. 3. The record further depicts that after filing of this petition, the petitioner also laid a motion under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 17.12.2013 for return of the plaint before the learned trial court on the similar grounds which is urged in the present petition and was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 23.04.2016. 4. Once the issue in respect of the valuation of the court fee has been adjudicated by the learned trial court and prayer for return of the plaint has been rejected by the learned trial court, the petitioner cannot raise the same issue before this Court, particularly when he had not chosen to assail order dated 04.05.2005 (supra) because the issue decided by the learned trial court had a nexus with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial court. 5. In view of this, the petitioner cannot raise aforesaid issue time and again, as such, the present writ petition is found to be misconceived and the same is dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu: 10.03.2025 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Rakesh Kumar 2025.03.12 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document