Mr. Mahesh Gupta vs Mr. Ranjit Singh & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 557 Del

             * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                                Date of Reserve: 6.2.2009
                                                        Date of Order: 16th February, 2009

IA No. 45/2009 & CS(OS) No. 1574/2007
%                                                                                  16.2.2009

        Mr. Mahesh Gupta                          ... Plaintiff
                      Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
                      and Ms. Rajeshwari, Advocate

                Versus


        Mr. Ranjit Singh & Ors.                      ... Defendants
                        Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Mr. M.D.Sazid &
                        Mr. Rahul Vidhani, Advocates for D - 1 to 3
                        Mr. Kapil Kumar Giri, Advocate for D-4


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?                                                                                 Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                 Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                                         Yes.

JUDGMENT

This Court framed issues in this case vide order dated 14.12.2007.

The defendants have made this application for treating an issue about

maintainability of the suit before this Court on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction

as preliminary issue. Counsel for both the sides addressed on this issue.

2. Plaintiff had filed this suit claiming five reliefs. In para 29, the

plaintiff has valued the suit for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction as under:

a) For an order of permanent injunction restraining Defendants; this is valued for Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and the Court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon.

b) For an order of permanent injunction restraining Defendants from passing off, this relief is valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and Court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon.

c) For an order of delivery up, this relief is valued for purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and Court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon.

d) For an order of rendition of amounts; this relief is tentatively valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.1000/- and Court fee of Rs.150/- is affixed; the Plaintiff undertakes to pay such additional Court fee as would be found due when the actual account is rendered and ascertained by this Hon'ble Court.

e) The rest of the prayers are incapable of valuation, and, therefore, do not attract Court fee.

Thus, the suit is valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.20,10,000/- and appropriate Court fee of Rs.22,500 is paid thereon.

3. A perusal of valuation done by the plaintiff shows that in respect of

each relief plaintiff has fixed the valuation for the purpose of Court fee and for the

purpose of jurisdiction. The total combined value of the suit for the purpose of

Court fee and jurisdiction, if all the reliefs are clubbed together, would be

Rs.1600/-. However, after valuing the suit for each relief the plaintiff stated that

suit was being valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction at

Rs.20,10,000/- without specifying how this value has been arrived at. Section 15

of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) provides that every suit is mandatorily to be

instituted by a plaintiff in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. This

Section is a rule of procedure and has been incorporated in CPC so that the

different Courts exercise their jurisdiction as per law and no single Court

becomes overcrowded with the suits. Where the total value of the suit is

Rs.1600/- a plaintiff does not have liberty to affix a higher Court fee on the suit so

as to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court he prefers. A suit for the value of

Rs.1600/- for the purpose of jurisdiction has to be tried by Civil Judge and has to

be filed before the Civil Judge. The plaintiff after valuing the suit at Rs.1600/-

could not have paid Court fee on Rs.20,10,000/- and filed the suit before High

Court. If this kind of valuation of a suit is allowed then it would result into forum

shopping and a person in total disregard of Suit Valuation Act affix Court fee at

any amount, pay Court fee of the Court where he wants to get his suit tried i.e.

before Civil Judge or before Additional District Judge or before the High Court

(since all the three have original jurisdiction) and get his matter fixed before that

Court. Section 15 of CPC then becomes redundant and the legislative mandate

that suit shall be instituted in lowest grade Court competent to try it shall stand

nullified. Plaintiff has relied upon Dev Pharmacy v. Nova International 2003(27)

PTC 395 (Del) and stated that this suit was maintainable before this Court. In

Dev Pharmacy case, the plaintiff had valued the relief of rendition of accounts at

Rs.20,01,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction. In the present case, the plaintiff

has valued the relief for rendition of accounts at Rs.1,000/- and not at Rs.20 lac

thus, the judgment relied upon by the plaintiff is of no help to him.

4. I consider that plaint is to be returned to the plaintiff to be filed

before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction competent to try a suit worth

Rs.1600/-. This Court cannot entertain a suit only because plaintiff is rich

enough to afford Court fee on amount of Rs.20 lac. The plaint, therefore, be

returned to the plaintiff to be presented before the Court of appropriate

jurisdiction.

February 16, 2009                                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn