Pradipta Mazumdar vs Amri Sabharwal & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1785 Del

*                    HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+         F.A.O. No.186 of 2013 & C.M. No.6300 of 2013 (for stay)

                                        Decided on : 22nd April, 2013

PRADIPTA MAZUMDAR                                  ...... Appellant
            Through:              Mr. K.K. Jha, Advocate with appellant in
                                  person.
                         Versus
AMRI SABHARWAL & ANR.                  ...... Respondent
             Through: Mr. Ajay Verma and Mr. Gaurav
                      Bhattacharya, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Order XLIII CPC

against the order dated 8.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional District

Judge in Suit No.785/2011 dismissing the application of the appellant

under Order VII Rule 10 & 11 CPC.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone

through the record.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that

the suit for possession, recovery of rent, mesne profit, damages and

permanent injunction which was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents

against the appellant/defendant is overvalued as a consequence of which

the suit which ought to have been filed in the court of the learned Civil

Judge has been chosen to be filed in the court of the learned District

Judge.

4. In the plaint, the plaintiffs/respondents have averred that they are

entitled to recover arrears of rent for the period from June, 2010 to June,

2011 @ `8,000/- per month , i.e., `1,16,000/- and for the period from

July, 2011 to October, 2011 @ `8,000/- per month, i.e., `32,000/-. So the

total rent to be recovered is `1,48,000/-. It was alleged that the current

market rent for similar premises in the Masjid Moth area is around

`20,000/- per month and, therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs are also

entitled to receive @ `20,000/- per month towards the rent from July,

2011 till the possession of the premises is handed over by the

defendant/appellant. It was further averred in the plaint that a total rent of

`1,48,000/- since June, 2010 to October, 2011 as mentioned above along

with an interest @ `24 per cent per annum from its due date, are liable to

be recovered from the defendant/appellant and that the

plaintiffs/respondents are further entitled to recovery of `20,000/- per

month towards the future rent calculated as per current market rate. It

was further stated that the plaintiffs/respondents are also entitled to

recover `50,000/- towards past and future damages, `50,000/- towards

litigation expenses and `50,000/- towards mesne profits from the

defendant/appellant.

5. The case of the appellant/defendant is that the

plaintiffs/respondents have claimed a sum of `50,000/- as mesne

profits/damages for the period from July, 2010 to October, 2011 and if

the plaintiffs/respondents are claiming arrears of rent for that period then

they are not entitled to claim the mesne profits. If this mesne profits of

`50,000/- is not added to the total valuation of the suit, as has been done

by the respondents/plaintiffs in paragraph 15 of the plaint (paragraph 2.19

of the appeal) then the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents ought to have

been filed in the court of Civil Judge and not in the court of District

Judge. Accordingly, it is prayed that the learned Additional District

Judge has erroneously rejected the application of the appellant/defendant

in rejecting the plaint of the respondents/plaintiffs on the ground of

jurisdiction.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel and have gone through the impugned order. So far as Order VII

Rule 11 CPC is concerned, under clause (b), if the plaintiff undervalues

his suit then the suit is liable to be rejected after the opportunity is given

to the plaintiff to pay the deficient court fees. Admittedly, the case which

was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is not a case where he has

undervalued the suit. The grievance of the appellant is on account of the

alleged overvaluation of the suit so as to bring it to the pecuniary

jurisdiction of the court of District Judge. In this regard, the learned

counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the judgment of the

Supreme Court in case titled Nandita Bose vs. Ratanlal Nahata; (1987) 3

SCC 705 to contend that in case a party makes absurd or imaginary

valuation of his plaint, the court will be well within its right to reject the

plaint after giving an opportunity to the plaintiff concerned to rectify the

valuation clause.

7. I have gone through the judgment cited by the learned counsel for

the appellant. There is no doubt about the fact that in the case which has

been cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Apex Court has

held that if a plaintiff grossly overvalues or undervalues the suit with the

object of bringing it within the jurisdiction of a particular court then the

plaint can be directed to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation

before the proper court. But if the valuation is made by the plaintiff on

the basis of a relief claimed by him which is neither absurd nor imaginary

but requires judicial consideration and on that basis the plaint is presented

before the court which has the jurisdiction, then such a plaint cannot be

rejected.

8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment would clearly show that the

court has the power to reject the plaint where there is an imaginary or an

absurd valuation done by a plaintiff. In the instant case, by no stretch of

imagination, it can be said that the respondents/plaintiffs have done

absurd valuation of their plaint. The respondents/plaintiffs have

categorically stated in a tabular form that upto a particular date; they are

entitled to the arrears of rent @ `8,000/- per month. They have also

stated that after termination of their tenancy, they may be directed to be

paid @ `8,000/- per month but as the market rent of the similar property

situated in the area in question would be `20,000/- per month, therefore,

they are claiming damages/mesne profits at that rate and they have

accordingly assessed the differential of the two and calculated the same to

be `50,000/- which has been added to the total pecuniary jurisdiction. I

do not think that such a reasoning or pleading which has been given by

the respondents/plaintiffs in the plaint can be said to be imaginary or

absurd, by any stretch of imagination.

9. I, accordingly, feel that there was hardly any occasion for the

learned trial court to have rejected the plaint. In my considered opinion,

the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application of the

appellant for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. I must

also say that the entire purpose of the appellant in undertaking this

exercise of compelling the respondents/plaintiffs to file the suit in the

court of Civil Judge rather than in the court of District Judge is only

actuated by ulterior considerations and these ulterior considerations,

which this court takes judicial notice of, is the fact that a case as on date

in the court of Additional District Judge gets decided faster on account of

lower pendency in comparison to the court of Civil Judge where it takes

much more time. This is obviously on account of the fact that there is

higher pendency in the court of Civil Judge.

10. I, accordingly, feel that the learned District Judge has rightly

rejected the application of the appellant. There is no merit in the appeal

and is dismissed as such.

V.K. SHALI, J.

APRIL 22, 2013 'AA'