All India O.B.C. Railway ... vs Vasudev Yadav & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2500 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                                  Date of Decision: 18.04.2012


+                                   FAO (OS) No.110 of 2012

ALL INDIA O.B.C. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
FEDERATION INDIAN RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI          ..... Appellant
               Through: Mr. Amit Bansal & Ms. Manisha Singh,
                        Advs.

                                                 versus

VASUDEV YADAV & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
            Through: Mr. Ajit Singh, Adv. for R-1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral)

1. Admit.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have also been served.

3. At request of learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

4. The appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and delivery of accounts & records against the respondents. The appellant claims to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is an All India Federation that serves to promote the welfare of Other Backward Classes (for short „OBC‟) Railways employees in various Railways organizations. The respondents are alleged to have been the Office Bearers of the appellant and constituted a part of the Central Executive

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Committee who had been expelled from the post held by them as well as the primary membership of the Society/Federation w.e.f. 14.8.2011. The appellant/plaintiff alleges various irregularities against the respondents/defendants in their capacity as Office Bearers of the appellant.

5. The case of the appellant is that despite expulsion letter having been issued to the respondents, they have failed to hand over the records, details of the financial deals, bank statements, etc., pertaining to the appellant-Federation and that they continue to retain control over the documents including the minutes books. They are, thus, alleged to be withholding the property of the appellant-Federation. A decree of permanent injunction is sought restraining the defendants from representing themselves as Office Bearers of the appellant-Federation and accessing or using the property belonging to the appellant-Federation as also to deliver all such properties as are within the possession of the defendants and to restore the funds of the appellant-Federation.

6. The relevant paragraph for the purposes of the controversy in the present appeal qua the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction reads as under:

"12. Valuation: The Plaintiff has valued the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in relief No.(a) of the Prayer clause at Rs.20,00,100/- for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. The appropriate court fee of Rs.22,000/- is affixed on the Plaint. Value for prayer (b) & (c) fixed at Rs.130/- each and court fee paid accordingly."

7. The appellant also filed an application seeking interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the „said Code‟).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Summons in the suit and notice in the application were issued on 19.10.2011 returnable on 10.1.2012. On the said date the counsel for respondent No.1 is stated to have orally raised an objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit and the matter was adjourned to 2.2.2012 for deciding the issue of valuation of the suit filed by the appellant as plaintiff.

9. In terms of the impugned order dated 2.2.2012, the learned single Judge has concluded that the appellant could not arbitrarily or whimsically value the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction to bring its case within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Judge relied upon Section 15 of the said Code to conclude that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try the suit and on going through the plaint he found that the appellant as plaintiff had failed to disclose as to why the value for the relief of permanent injunction had been stated to be `20,00,100.00 for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. It has, thus, been held that the suit ought to have been presented before the subordinate courts which is lowest grade court competent to try and entertain the suit and directed the plaint to be accordingly returned to the plaintiff in terms of Order 7 Rule 10 of the said Code and for the Registry to return the plaint for its proper presentation before the competent court of jurisdiction of the lowest grade.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conclusion of the learned single Judge is contrary to the settled legal position in view of various pronouncements of this Court as well as of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

11. In Tara Devi Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj Through Sebaits Chandeshwar Prasad and Meshwar Prasad and Another _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

(1987) 4 SCC 69 while dealing with the issue of valuation of suit for declaration with consequential relief falling within Section 7

(iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the „said Act‟) it has been held that a plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to the court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively under-valued that the court can examine the valuation and can revise the same.

12. In M/s. Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and Others Vs. Vimla Pannalal (1988) 3 SCC 423 the question of exercise of jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the said Code has been examined. The said clause deals with the rejection of the plaint where the relief claimed is under-valued and the plaintiff on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time fixed by the court, fails to do so. The respondent in the appeal had filed a suit against the appellants for dissolution of a partnership firm and for accounts in the Delhi High Court. The suit was valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at `25.00 lakh and for the purposes of court fee at `500.00. The appellant raised a preliminary objection that the relief sought for in the suit has been grossly under-valued. This objection was over-ruled by the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It was inter alia held that under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the said Code a court has to come to a finding that the relief claimed has been under-valued, which necessarily means that the court is able to decide and specify proper and correct valuation of the relief and after determination _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

of the correct value of the relief, requires the plaintiff to correct his valuation within a time to be fixed by the court. If the court cannot determine the correct valuation of the relief claimed, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and consequently Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the said Code will not be applicable. This conclusion was arrived at following a judgement of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Vs. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1958 SC 245. The court is required to interfere, if there being materials or objective standards for the valuation of the relief and yet the plaintiff ignores the same and puts an arbitrary valuation, as in that case the court will be in a position to determine the correct valuation with reference to the objective standards or materials available. The court would then be in a position to direct the plaintiff to value the relief accordingly.

13. A learned single Judge of this Court had examined the issue qua the right of the plaintiff to put any valuation of the plaint in Hans Raj Kalra Vs. Kishan Lal Kalra & Ors. ILR 1976 Delhi 745. It has been held that the said Act gives a right to the plaintiff to place any valuation that he liked on the relief that he seeks subject, however, to any rules made under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act and that the court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff‟s valuation. Ordinarily valuation of a suit has no impact on the valuation for the other purpose. However, Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act incorporates an explanation when it provides that where any suit other than the suit referred in the said Act Section 7 paragraph v, vi, ix & x, clause (d) court fees are payable, ad valorem under the said Act, the valuation as determinable for the computation of court fees and the value for _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. Thus, for these kinds of suits the value determined for computation of court fee is also determinative of the value for purposes of jurisdiction. An injunction falls in this category in which the relief sought can be valued by the plaintiff and such valuation would also determine the court in which the suit could be filed.

14. We may also refer to a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Shakuntala Rani Vs. Rajesh Bhatt (Deceased) Through LRs. 80 (1999) DLT 98 (DB) specifically dealing with the valuation of a suit for injunction under Section 7 (iv) (d) of the said Act. It has been held that the plaintiff has a right in any suits mentioned in various clauses of sub-section, to place any valuation that he likes on relief he seeks and the court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff‟s valuation. It was, thus, held that it was not open to the single Judge to form his own opinion and to substitute that plaintiff‟s option to conclude that the valuation is arbitrary and unreasonable and it is only when the plaint is shown to have been demonstratively undervalued that the court is entitled to examine correctness of valuation given by the plaintiff. It was not open to the court to examine the correctness of valuation given by the plaintiff.

15. We may note that there are a catena of judgements of different High Courts on the same line and, thus, it is beyond pale of doubt that in a suit for injunction the valuation put forth by the plaintiff must prevail.

16. In the present case it is not as if the plaintiff has undervalued the suit or that the learned single Judge could have determined with precision the value of the suit. Thus, the valuation both for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction had to be accepted. The _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

result was that the suit had to be tried on the Original Side of this Court, having valuation both for court fee and jurisdiction of more than `20.00 lakh on which ad valorem court fee had been paid.

17. It appears that the aforesaid settled legal principles were not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge and, thus, escaped his attention. These principles have always been followed while entertaining injunction suits on the Original Side of this court.

18. The impugned order being unsustainable is, thus, set aside and the suit is directed to be tried on the Original Side of this Court in view of what has been set out hereinbefore.

19. The suit, being CS (OS) No.2560/2011, and interim application for injunction, being IA No.16503/2011, be placed before the learned single Judge on 1.5.2012 for further proceedings.

20. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

APRIL 18, 2012                                                 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
b'nesh

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________