Delhi High Court
Shri Ishwar Chand Gupta vs Shri Yudhister Gupta And Ors. on 21 August, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M.(M) No.1230/2013
% 21st August, 2014
SHRI ISHWAR CHAND GUPTA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Mittal, Advocate.
VERSUS
SHRI YUDHISTER GUPTA AND ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
+ C.M.(M) No.1230/2013 and C.M. No.18054/2013 (stay)
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/plaintiff challenges the impugned order of the trial court dated 7.10.2013 as per which the trial court before even issuing summons in the suit held that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and accordingly directed the petitioner/plaintiff to value the suit for injunction at market value of the suit property and pay court fee. CM(M) No.1230/2013 Page 1 of 4
2. The subject suit is for recovery of damages, perpetual and mandatory injunction. The reliefs which are claimed in the suit are as under:-
"It is therefore prayed that the following relief/s to the Plaintiff may kindly be granted against the Defendants:
a) That a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) be passed against the defendants jointly, severally co-
extensively, individually, separately towards the cost of repairs, damages so caused to the property of the plaintiff and towards damages for causing mental agony, tensions, torture, harassment to the Plaintiff alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till its realization.
b) That a decree for perpetual injunction be passed restraining the defendants, their men, agents, nominees, from carrying out any unauthorized construction in the property bearing no.11767, Gali No.4, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 or on the Municipal Land and the Defendant No.1 and 2 be further restrained to put the property into any use which is in contravention of building bye-laws and DMC Act, 1957.
c) That a decree for mandatory injunction be passed directing the demolition/removal of the unauthorized construction so carried by the Defendant No.1 and 2 beyond the site plan/building plan so sanctioned by the Defendant No.3 in their favour.
d) A decree for mandatory injunction be passed directing the Defendant No.3 to 5 to lodging criminal complaint/criminal prosecution against the Defendant No.1 and 2 and their own officials for removal of the Government seal put by the Defendant No.3/4 on the property and the defendant no.3 to 4 be directed to take disciplinary action against the defendant no.5 or any other officer so found guilty involved in working against his duty to help the defendant no.1 & 2.
e) Cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
CM(M) No.1230/2013 Page 2 of 4
f) Any other/direction Order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. It is prayed accordingly."
3. The relevant para with respect to court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction is para 15 of the plaint, and which reads as under:-
"15) That the value of the suit for the purpose of the Court Fees and Jurisdiction has been fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- for the relief of recovery, Rs.130/- for the relief of perpetual injunction and Rs.130/-
for the relief of mandatory injunction, on which requisite Court Fees has been affixed/paid."
4. Plaintiff has paid the necessary ad valorem court fee with respect to recovery of damages of Rs.5 lacs. So far as the reliefs of injunctions are concerned, the same have been valued at Rs.130/- and for which court fee of Rs.13/- has been paid for each relief of injunction. A reading of the suit plaint shows that the cause of action and reliefs with respect to recovery of damages and injunction are independent reliefs. Once with respect to each of the independent reliefs court fee is paid, it is not understood as to how the impugned order can hold that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and has not paid appropriate court fee. The reliefs which are claimed of injunction are with respect to restraining the defendant from carrying on unauthorized construction, not using the property in CM(M) No.1230/2013 Page 3 of 4 violation of the municipal laws, for demolition of the unauthorized construction and for direction to lodge a criminal complaint against the defendants.
5. As per the Court Fees Act, 1870 as applicable in Delhi, it is the prerogative of the plaintiff in a suit for injunction to value the relief at the amount which he deems fit with the minimum value at Rs.130/-. In this case, with respect to each relief of injunction the suit is valued at Rs.130/- and for each relief of injunction the appropriate court fee of Rs.13/- has been paid. Since possession is not prayed court fee is not required to be paid on the market value of the property.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order is illegal and is accordingly set aside. It is held that at the stage of issuing of the summons in the suit it cannot be held that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, however, if there is such an issue raised by the defendant, in this regard, the same will be finally dealt with by the concerned court in accordance with law.
7. Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 7.10.2013.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J AUGUST 21, 2014/Ne CM(M) No.1230/2013 Page 4 of 4