IMPORTANT POINT
Valuation of suit – It is nature of relief claimed in plaint which is decisive of question of suit valuation – Market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because an immovable property is subject-matter of litigation.

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 this matter on 26.04.2019, this Court, while issuing notice, stayed the operation of the impugned order of the High Court. It has been pointed out during the course of submissions that after the stay order of this Court, the trial of the subject suit proceeded further and ultimately, the suit was decreed on 31.08.2021 and the appeal filed by the contesting defendant (respondent No. 1 herein) is pending.

3. In the given set of circumstances, we do not propose to dilate on all the factual aspects of the case as the matter is said to be pending in appeal and all the relevant aspects are required to be left open for examination by the First Appellate Court. The discussion herein, therefore, is confined only to the correctness and validity of the order passed by the High Court in regard to the suit valuation and not beyond. Thus, only a brief reference to the factual aspects, to the extent relevant for the present purpose, would suffice.

3.1. The plaintiff-appellant had filed the subject suit bearing No. 427419 of 2016 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi for mandatory and prohibitory injunction and recovery of damages. The nature of the suit is specified in the caption of the plaint that reads as under:

“Suit for mandatory injunction directing the Defendant No. 1 to remove himself with all his stuff from one room and open space (shown as ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the map plan) and the Defendant No. 2 to remove himself with all his stuff from two rooms (shown as ‘C’ and ‘D’ in the map plan) located in Plot No. RZ-28, Indira Park Extension, Near Hanuman Mandir, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 measuring 252 sq. yards, and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining both of them from creating any third party rights therein or raising any construction thereon, and for payment of damages with interest and cost.”

3.2. The plaintiff averred that he was the owner of Plot No. RZ-28, Indira Park Extension, Near Hanuman Mandir, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi admeasuring 252 sq. yards, for having purchased the same in the year 1981. The plaintiff further averred that he had raised three-rooms tin shed on the said plot in the year 1983-84; that since the plot was lying un-utilised, the defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein), elder brother of the plaintiff, made a request for using the plot for storage purposes in connection with his work as building contractor. Accordingly, the defendant No. 1 was admitted as a gratuitous licensee at will on the plot in question. The plaintiff further averred that in the year 1989-90, the defendant No. 1 again approached him with a request to permit the defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 1 herein), who was said to be working as Munshi with the defendant No. 1, to reside in two rooms of the tin shed, till such time w