The return of the plaint for improper valuation and payment of court fee under Order VII Rule 10 mandates correction of inadequacy and approaching the competent court. The proceedings need not commence de novo, but from the stage they were in the court of the Additional District Judge. The valuation of the suit property at the time of re-presentation of the plaint is crucial.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by an order rejecting his application for rejection of the Plaintiff’s plaint. The appellant shall be hereafter referred to as such or the defendant; the Plaintiff shall be referred to as the plaintiff.

2. In 1999, the plaintiff filed a suit against the present Appellant seeking, inter alia, recovery of the plot bearing No. 4, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi before the Delhi High Court, as CS (OS) No. 1918/1999 (“the suit property”). The Plaintiff had valued the suit property at Rs. 10 lakhs. On 17.06.2003, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi District Courts was increased and the suit was transferred to the Learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, where the proceedings continued from the stage at which they were transferred. By then, issues too had been framed.

3. On the basis of the admission of PW-1, during cross-examination that the suit property was valued at Rs. 1 crore when the suit had been filed, and Rs. 15 crore on the date of cross-examination, i.e. 27.07.2009, the Learned District Judge, by order dated 22.09.2009 returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10 of the CPC.

4. The Plaintiff filed I.A. No. 5779/2010 before this Court requesting that the original plaint be taken on record, and that the matter be proceeded with from the stage at which the Learned District Judge had heard it. A learned Single Judge granted the relief, and in an ex parte order dated 03.05.2010, took the original plaint on record as requested by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the Learned Single Judge by an order dated 20.5.2010 held that since the plaint was returned by the Additional District Judge at the time of final arguments, the suit would be heard by this Court from that stage, and not de novo.

5. The Appellant/ defendant then filed an application, IA No. 8469/2010 under Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint stating that the Plaintiff had valued the suit property at the original amount, despite an admission during cross-examination and the order of the Learned District Judge, and thus, paid insufficient Court Fees. The appellant subsequently also urged that the suit must be proceeded with de novo and not from the stage of final arguments – this argument being raised in the rejoinder and in oral submissions before the learned Single Judge, but not in the original application under Order VII CPC.

6. The learned Single Judge in an order dated 20.09.2011 disposed off the application noting that the Plaintiff had, subject to confirmation by the Registry, paid the additional Court Fees based on a valuation of the suit property at Rs. 1 crore, and thus, the application was devoid of any merit. However, the learned Single Judge specifically excluded two questions from consideration: first, whether the suit property was correctly valued at Rs. 1 crore, or as the Appellants claimed, Rs. 15 crore; and secondly, whether the suit was to be tried de novo. The Single Judge did not rule on either as they were not raised directly in the application itself, but subsequently, and thus, liberty to raise these contentions by way of separate applications was granted to the Appellant.

7. In these circumstances, the Appellant filed yet another application, I.A. No. 15914/ 2011, seeking recall of the order dated 20.05.2010, arguing essentially that the matter must be treated as de novo and that the Court must not take the matter up from where the learned District Judge had returned the plaint. In the alternative, the Appellant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 7(b), CPC. This application was converted to a review petition by an order of the Court dated 12.10.2011, and was numbered R.A. No. 604/2011.

8. The Review was party allowed: first, the learned Single Judge modified the order dated 20.05.2010 to the extent of removing the words “for final arguments”, but nonetheless allowed for the matter and the file to be brought u