Kapil Kumar Ahluwalia vs Arvind Brands & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 1647 Del

17
$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 3165/2012 & IAs No.19565/2012, 5333/2013,
      15346/2013 & 19640/2013

      KAPIL KUMAR AHLUWALIA                      ..... Plaintiff
                    Through Mr.Samrat Nigam,
                    Ms.Ankita M.Bahl & Ms.Ayshwarya Chandar,
                    Advocates

                          versus

      ARVIND BRANDS & ANR                        ..... Defendants
                    Through Mr.Sanjay Ghose and
                    Mr.Rishabh Jetly, Advocate for D-1
                    Mr.Manoj Arora, Mr.Vikram Hazarika and
                    Mr.Siddharth Shanker, Advocates for D-2

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                          ORDER

% 25.02.2015

IA No.26356/2014(by D-2 u/O VII R 10 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed by the defendant No.2

praying inter alia that the plaint is liable to be returned to the plaintiff

for being filed in a court vested with the pecuniary jurisdiction to

entertain the suit.

2. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submits that the suit,

that was initially filed by the plaintiff, was for the reliefs of declaration,

rendition of accounts, possession and injunction. However, vide order

dated 29.1.2013, the plaintiff had sought to confine the relief in the

suit to prayers (d) & (f). Prayer (d) is for issuance of directions to the

defendants to hand over physical possession of the suit premises, for

which relief, the suit has been valued at `3,600/- and prayer (f) is in

respect of costs for which no valuation has been done. He states that

given the remaining reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff, the High Court is

no longer vested with the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the

present suit and therefore, the plaint may be returned to the plaintiff

for being presented before the competent court.

3. Counsel for the plaintiff fairly states that he does not oppose the

prayer made in the application, but invokes Order VII, Rule 10A of the

C.P.C and requests that a date may be fixed by this court for the

parties to appear before the competent court so that the suit can be

proceeded without any delay.

4. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and disposed of.

With the consent of the counsels for the parties, the suit along with

the pending applications is directed to be returned to the plaintiff for

being presented before the learned Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts,

Delhi, a court that is vested with the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and

entertain the same. The parties shall appear before the competent

court on 27.3.2015, for further proceedings in this suit.

5. The suit is disposed of, along with the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J

FEBRUARY 25, 2015 mk