Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yaqub Khan vs The Punjab Kashmir Finance Private ... on 10 July, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CR No.5529 of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.5529 of 2002.
Date of Decision:10.07.2013.
Yaqub Khan
..Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab Kashmir Finance Private Limited
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Surinder Singh Kaliramna, Advocate,
for Mr. Birender Singh Rana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
Instant revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') for setting aside the order dated 17.08.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nuh whereby an application filed by respondent-defendant under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, Section 11 of CPC and Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been allowed and Kumar Parveen 2013.07.15 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.5529 of 2002 2 suit of the petitioner has been held to be not maintainable and it has also been held that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that originally, the suit was filed for recovery of possession of truck bearing registration No.HR26D-9065, valued at ` 5 lacs, from the respondent and also for damages for snatching the vehicle illegally and unlawfully and further ` 3 lacs for damages were claimed. After notice, respondent-defendant appeared and moved an application under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, Section 11 of CPC and Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In the application, it was prayed that hire-purchase agreement dated 5.12.1996 was executed at Jalandhar, Punjab. As per the agreement, the Court at Jalandhar would have the jurisdiction. No part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. It was further averred that in terms of hire-purchase agreement, there was an arbitration clause and the case was referred to the Arbitrator and after following the procedure, the Arbitrator has passed the award in favour of the respondent-defendant. It was further mentioned that the petitioner- plaintiff also filed a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Gurgaon which was also dismissed. It was further mentioned in the application that the suit was for recovery of vehicle as well as damages, but the ad valorem court fee has not been affixed.
The trial Court after appreciating the record came to the conclusion that from the perusal of clause 26 of the hire-purchase agreement, it is clear that the court at Jalandhar has the jurisdiction as consented by the parties. The trial Court also came to the conclusion Kumar Parveen 2013.07.15 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.5529 of 2002 3 that as per the arbitration clause, the matter was referred to Arbitrator and the Award had already been passed. The petitioner-plaintiff could have challenged the arbitral Award , but the same was not done and the same has attained finality.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the trial court has acted illegally and with material irregularity while recording the findings on jurisdiction, court fee and maintainability of the suit.
I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the present case, the petitioner has claimed recovery of possession of the truck, whose market value has been mentioned as ` 5 lacs as per the averments mentioned in the decree-sheet annexed with the file. Besides this, an amount to the tune of ` 5 lacs has been sought as damages under various heads, but the ad valorem court fee has not been paid as per Section 7 (iii) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Section 7 (iii) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is re-produced as under:
"Computation of fees payable for other movable property having a market value:
In suits for movable property other than money, where the subject-matter has a market value according to such value at the date of presenting the plaint." From the perusal of above section, it is clear that as the subject Kumar Parveen 2013.07.15 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.5529 of 2002 4 matter has a market value, so according to such value as determined on date of filing of plaint, the Court fee is to be affixed. Since the petitioner has himself assessed ` 5 lacs as the value of the truck and prayed for recovery of the truck and claimed another ` 5 lacs as damages, the petitioner was required to affix the court fee according to market value of the truck along with the damages claimed. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that as per the terms of the agreement, the jurisdiction and cause of action arose at Jalandhar and the court at Jalandhar has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Further, the court has come to the conclusion that no proper court fee has been affixed.
In view of this, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Petitioner will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, if he so desires.
Dismissed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge July 10, 2013 parveen kumar Kumar Parveen 2013.07.15 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh