Delhi High Court - Orders
Mr Alok Joshi & Anr vs Mr Amit Joshi on 4 August, 2025
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~O-31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 131/2024, I.A.3942/2024, I.A.10504/2024
MR ALOK JOSHI & ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr Sanjeev Puri, Sr. Advocate with
Ms Pragya Puri and Mr Abhinav
Tyagi, Advocates.
versus
MR AMIT JOSHI .....Defendant
Through: Mr Manish Sharma, Sr. Advocate
with Mr Nitish Kant Sharma and Mr
Vatsal Goyal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 04.08.2025 I.A.10505/2024 [u/O VII Rule 11 CPC]
1. Heard Mr. Manish Sharma and Mr. Sanjeev Puri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the parties on I.A. 10505/2024.
2. Mr. Sharma has taken this Court to the relevant paragraphs, to indicate that the suit is admittedly not properly valued for the purposes of the pecuniary jurisdiction, as the High Court has jurisdiction to decide matters wherein the valuation of the Civil Suit exceeds ₹2 crores. He has taken this court to paragraph no.32, which is extracted as under:-
"32. The valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee is as under:
a. For the relief of injunction, the suit is valued at Rs. 200/-, upon which the requisite fixed court fee ofRs. 20/- has been affixed with the Plaint.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2025 at 22:04:38 b. For the relief of rendition of accounts, since the Plaintiffs are not aware of the amounts that may fall to their share, thus the relief for the same is tentatively valued at Rs.200/-, for which a court fee of Rs.20/-, is affixed with the Plaint.
The Plaintiff undertakes to pay the necessary and requisite court fee on the amount that is found due to it after rendition of accounts, if the court fee paid already by it is found to be deficient. c. For the relief of recovery of Rs.1,20,00,000 as 2/3rd share of the occupation charges/mesne profits from December 2020 till December 2023, upon which an ad-valorem court fee of Rs.1,20,000 is affixed with the Plaint Thus, the total court fee of Rs.1,20,040 is being paid herewith. As stated above, while the valuation of the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction is in excess of Rs.2 crores. The Plaintiffs undertake to pay necessary and requisite court fee on the amount that is found due to it after rendition of accounts, if the court fee paid already by it is found to be deficient."
3. To substantiate his position, Mr. Sharma has also placed reliance on the decision in Rajinder Singh Bhatia v. Manju Bhatia1,
4. Mr. Puri, on the other hand, who appears for the plaintiffs, contends that the aforesaid controversy has been settled by this Court in Ramesh Chander Munjal v. Suraj Munjal2. He has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph no. 47 of the said decision, where the Court has considered the decision in the case of Surinder Kaur v. S. Rajdev Singh3,
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court finds that in Rajinder Singh Bhatia (supra), the suit itself was valued tentatively at ₹50 crores. It is for the aforesaid reasons, the Court, in the facts of that case, has held that whenever a Civil Suit for rendition of account is presented, the plaintiff may not be exactly aware of about the actual amount, and therefore, is entitled for the 1 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2497 2 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1045 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2025 at 22:04:38 tentative valuation of the suit.
6. In the instant case, however, the plaintiff, at the relevant paragraphs, has not specifically stated the valuation, so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
7. Mr. Puri, however, then took this Court to paragraph no.18 of the plaint, and then points out that the plaintiff has clearly taken a position that the account of the share of Ms. Sneh Joshi is approximately ₹2.05 crores from the sale of the entire second floor of the subject property. He, therefore, submits that in any case, the rendition of the account is not less than ₹2.05 crores, and this is what his tentative valuation which should be accepted for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Having considered the aforesaid submission, the Court finds that this Court in the case of Dr Ramesh Chander Munjal (supra), has considered almost similar controversy, and has held as under:-
"47. As regards the objections taken by the contesting defendants that the suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of Court fees, the plaintiffs have rightly placed reliance on the judgment in Surinder Kaur (supra), which was rendered while determining an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking dismissal of the suit for the rendition of accounts upon deficiency in Court Fees. Relevant portions of the said judgment are reproduced below:-
"18. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs while relying upon the cases of M/s. Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and others v. Mrs. Vimla Pannalal, AIR 1988 SC 1636 and Bombay Ammonia Pvt. Ltd. (supra) contended that it is only a fond hope of the plaintiffs that an amount of even more than Rs. 50 crores may be due to the plaintiffs upon correct rendition of accounts by the defendants. There is no arbitrariness and the plaintiff's claim would be covered under Rule 4, the provisions of Section 7 (4) of the Court Fee Act and the exception to the Rule of the Suit being valued identically for 3 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1130 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2025 at 22:04:38 the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. The principle of law cited on either side can hardly be a matter of dispute. The plaintiffs cannot act arbitrarily in valuing the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. Wherever the suit for rendition of accounts is filed and it is not practically probable for the plaintiff to exactly value the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, he can avail of the benefit of payment of fixed court fee with an undertaking to make up the deficiency in payment of court fee, once the accounts are settled and a definite amount is determined by the court, which the plaintiff would be entitled to receive. The application of the plaintiff to pay court fee on that amount can fully be protected by decree being subject to payment of court fee at that stage, of course, limited in such suits.
19. In the present case, the reference to Rs. 40 or 50 crores firstly relates only to renovation and furnishing of the hotel and does not even on the bare reading of the plaint, reflect to be the entire value of the assets and accounts of the partnership or as a true and correct depiction of the settled account or share of an individual partner. The figure arrived at by the plaintiffs should be definite and essentially must be based upon such determining factors which ex facie indicate an acceptable value of the assets of the partnership and its business, including all its aspect. Merely because some figure has been indicated in the pleadings or correspondence exchanged between the parties in regard to renovation and furnishing of the hotel, would not determine the complete settled accounts of the partnership so as to make the plaintiffs liable to pay the ad valorem court fee on the fond hope or an estimated figure. The plaintiffs would obviously be liable to pay the court fee on final determination arrived at by the court upon true and correct rendition of accounts, as admittedly the defendants are carrying on the business, though their pleading is that the partnership has already been dissolved."
To similar effect is the judgment of this Court in Vijay Singh (supra)."
9. Additionally, Mr. Puri also undertakes that he will specifically make the averment in his jurisdiction paragraph of the plaint. In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any reason to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and instead grants liberty to Mr. Puri to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law, including to file an application seeking This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2025 at 22:04:38 amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, for placing the tentative valuation in the Civil Suit itself.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands dismissed. I.A.10504/2024 (u/O VII Rule 10 CPC)
11. The I.A. stands disposed of with the same observation as passed in I.A.10505/2024 .
CS(OS) 131/2024 and I.A.3942/2024
12. With respect to certain aspects which relate to the verification and apostillation of document(s) is concerned, Mr. Puri prays for some time to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
13. In view of the aforesaid, the hearing of this case stands deferred to 03.12.2025.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 4, 2025 tr/sp This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2025 at 22:04:38