Devi Singh vs Hotel Lalgarh Palace
2023 Latest Caselaw 1873 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1873 Raj
Judgement Date : 17 February, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Devi Singh vs Hotel Lalgarh Palace on 17 February, 2023

Bench: Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 78/2022

Devi Singh

----Petitioner Versus Hotel Lalgarh Palace

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 80/2022 Swaroop Singh

----Petitioner Versus Hotel Lalgarh Palace

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Bhaiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Katariya Mr. Rajesh Choudhary

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

17/02/2023

The matters come upon the applications preferred on behalf

of the respondent seeking vacation of ex parte interim orders

dated 01.08.2022 and 28.06.2022 respectively. Vide the interim

orders, further proceedings in the suits have been stayed.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the

impugned order dated 22.12.2021 whereby the application under

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the

defendant-petitioner has been rejected, is perfectly in consonance

with law in so far as it is the settled position of law that the suit

for mandatory injunction qua a licencee is not to be valued on its

market price but on the relief as prayed for. Learned counsel

(2 of 3) [CR-78/2022]

submitted that it is the settled principle of law that a suit for

mandatory and prohibitory injunction is not required to be valued

at the market value of the property and therefore, the finding of

the learned court below being totally in consonance with law does

not deserve interference. Furthermore, when the issue relating to

valuation of the suit as well as the payable court fees have already

been framed in the suit, the interim orders whereby the further

proceedings have been stayed deserve to be vacated. Learned

counsel also submitted that the applications under Order VII Rule

11 CPC had been filed at the fag end i.e. after the evidence having

been completed and only final arguments were to be heard. In

support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon Hon'ble

Apex Court judgment in the matter of Bharat Bhushan Gupta

Vs. Pratap Narain Verma & Anr.; AIR 2022 SC 2867.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the impugned order is totally contrary to the provisions of law and

therefore, the interim orders deserve to be confirmed.

In Bharat Bhushan Gupta's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed as under :

"9.1. It remains trite that it is the nature of relief claimed in the plaint which is decisive of the question of suit valuation. As a necessary corollary, the market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because an immovable property is the subject-matter of litigation. The market value of the immovable property involved in the litigation might have its relevance depending on the nature of relief claimed but, ultimately, the valuation of any particular suit has to be decided primarily with reference to the relief/reliefs claimed.

The Court, further observed as under :

11.2. These observations were, in fact, taken note of by the High Court in the impugned judgment too but they cannot be read to mean that in a suit for mandatory injunction concerning a property and thereby seeking

(3 of 3) [CR-78/2022]

certain mandates over the acts/omissions of the defendant, the suit is required to be valued as per the market value of the property. Such a proposition, for suit valuation on the market value of the property involved, irrespective of the nature of relief claimed, if accepted, would render the whole scheme of the Court Fees Act concerning suit valuation with reference to the nature of relief going haywire. This argument is required to be rejected."

It is an admitted case that the present was a suit for

possession in form of declaratory and mandatory injunction and

mesne profits against a licencee. There lies a basic difference

between a title suit for possession and a suit for mandatory

injunction against a licencee asking to remove himself and his

belongings from the premises after determination of the licence.

Therefore, the suit for mandatory injunction with a consequential

prayer for handing over of possession by a licencee cannot be

termed to be a title suit for possession. Moreover, the deficit court

fees having been ordered by the court to be made good and the

same having been done and further, the issue having been framed

qua the same, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the

impugned order dated 22.12.2021 does not deserve interference.

However, keeping the issue open for final arguments, the

applications for vacation of interim orders dated 01.08.2022 and

28.06.2022 are allowed. The interim orders dated 01.08.2022 and

28.06.2022 are hereby vacated. The court below would be at

liberty to proceed with the suit proceedings forthwith.