DINESH MAHESHWARI, VIKRAM NATH
Bharat Bhushan Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Pratap Narain Verma – Respondent
इस मामले में न्यायालय ने यह निर्णय दिया कि मुकदमे का मूल्यांकन मुख्य रूप से राहतों के आधार पर किया जाना चाहिए, न कि केवल संपत्ति के बाजार मूल्य पर। न्यायालय ने यह भी माना कि जब मुकदमा निषेधाज्ञा या अनिवार्य राहतों से संबंधित हो, तो राहतों की प्रकृति और दावे के अनुसार ही मुकदमे का मूल्य निर्धारित किया जाना चाहिए। इस प्रकार, उच्च न्यायालय का यह निर्णय सही था कि मुकदमे का मूल्यांकन बाजार मूल्य के आधार पर किया जाना अधिक उपयुक्त है, और इसलिए मुकदमे को उचित न्यायालय में स्थानांतरित किया जाना चाहिए। अंततः, अपील कोर्ट ने ट्रायल कोर्ट के निर्णय को बहाल किया और स्पष्ट किया कि मुकदमे का मूल्यांकन मुख्य रूप से राहतों के आधार पर ही किया जाना चाहिए।
JUDGMENT
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction as also recovery of damages for use and occupation of the suit property, as filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants-respondents1 [Hereinafter, the parties have also been referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ or ‘the defendant No. 1’ or ‘the defendant No. 2’ as per their status in the suit] wherein, an application filed by the contesting defendant (respondent No. 1 herein) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 [‘CPC’ for short] during the course of plaintiff’s evidence, for rejection of the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, was considered and rejected by the Trial Court on 11.07.2018 but, the High Court has taken a different view of the matter in its impugned order dated 18.03.2019 with reference to the statement made by the plaintiff in his cross-examination as regards the value of the suit property and has ordered return of the plaint for filing the same in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
2.1. It may be observed at the outset that after examining the petition seeking special leave to appeal in
Mulk Raj Khullar v. Anil Kapur & Ors.
Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (dead) through LRs.
Malik Mohd Tanveer v. Uzma Malik & Anr., CM(M) 663 of 205
Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and Ors. v. Vimla Pannalal
Mahant Purshottam Dass & Ors. V. Har Narain & Anr.
Milka Singh v. Diana: AIR 1964 J&K 99 – Referred [Para 9.3]
Joseph Severance & Ors. v. Benny Mathew & Ors.
Padmavati Mahajan v. Yogender Mahajan & Anr.: (2008) 152 DLT 363 – Referred with Approval [Para 9.5]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.