Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 207
High Court Of Calcutta
Asit Kumar Bisi
DINWARA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
AMITAVA BANERJEE - Respondent
C. O. 495 Of 2001
Decided On : 03/26/2002
A.DAS, N.Bhattacharjee, N.MISHRA, P.K.MUKHERJI
The plaintiff has the right to value the relief claimed according to his own estimation and such valuation has to be ordinarily accepted.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'Jurisdiction', 'SUBJECT': 'Valuation of Suit', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure', 'Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure', 'Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure'], 'SUMMARY': 'The court held that the plaintiff has the right to value the relief claimed according to his own estimation and such valuation has to be ordinarily accepted. The court also held that the plaintiff cannot claim mesne profits for any period prior to a decree for possession and the claim for mesne profits as made by the plaintiff prior to a decree for possession is barred by law.'}
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant therefrom and for a decree of mesne profits as provided under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was valued at Rs. 30,200/- i. e. , Rs. 7,200/- for recovery of khas possession and Rs. 23,000/- per mesne profits as well as damages tentatively and the plaintiff has paid the ad valorem Court fees for the same. The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for return of the plaint filed in the said suit to the plaintiff for presenting the same to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South). The trial court rejected the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order of rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed by the learned Court below is not vitiated by any jurisdictional error, which can warrant interference of this Court in revision. There being no merit in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same is bound to fail.
Issues: Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is legally sustainable on the face of the materials on record.
Ratio Decidendi: The liberty to value a suit and to determine the forum on the basis of such determination lies with the plaintiff unless the valuation put by the plaintiff can be demonstratively shown to be arbitrary and unreasonable.
Final Decision: The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is accordingly dismissed.
( 1 ) THE instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the petitioner is directed against Order No. 15 dated 16-1-2001 passed by the leaned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 9th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in T. S. No. 1 of 2000. By the impugned order the learned trial Court rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant/ petitioner.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to the instant revisional application may briefly be stated thus, The defendant/petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has arisen out of the suit for recovery of khas possession, mesne profits and damages valued at Rs. 30,200/- i. e. , Rs. 7,200/- for recovery of khas possession, Rs. 10,000/- as mesne profits and Rs. 13,000/- as damages tentatively. It has been contended by the defendant/petitioner that in a suit like the present one a landlord cannot claim mesne profits for any period prior to a decree for possession and as such the claim for mesne profits as made by the plaintiff/opposite party prior to a decree for possession, is barred by law. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the valuation of the said suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is malafide and wrongful and the said valuation of the suit as assessed by the plaintiff is thus deliberate and illegal attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) although the said learned Judge does not have jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the said suit. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that the suit should have been instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South ). Accordingly the defendant/petitioner has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for return of the plaint filed in the said suit to the plaintiff for presenting the same to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South ).
( 3 ) THE said application has been contested by the Opposite Party/plaintiff contending inter alia that the application is not maintainable and the same is barred by law and that the application has been filed by the defendant to cause delay and harass the plaintiff. It has been further contended by the O. P/plaintiff that the suit is maintainable and the trial Court where the suit has been instituted is well within its jurisdiction to entertain and try the said suit and that there is no necessity for return of the plaint. As contended by the O. P/plaintiff, the valuation of the suit has been correctly assessed. Under the above circumstances the O. P. /plaintiff has prayed for rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court, Alipore, has considered the materials on record and rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the impugned order of rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed by the learned trial Court the petitioner/defendant has preferred the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India alleging inter alia that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law by not returning the plaint filed in T. S. No. 1 of 2000 for presenting the same to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South), that the learned Court below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law in not holding that the plaintiff/opposite party's claim for mesne profits for the period prior to his obtaining a decree, if any, for eviction of the petitioner was barred by law and not m
