RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. Hon‘ble the Chief Justice has constituted this Bench pursuant to the order dated 27th April, 2016 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No.3857/2016 supra of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint to enhance the valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction. The relevant paras of the order dated 27th April, 2016 (reported as 2016 SCC Online Del 2497) are reproduced herein below:

“6. Accordingly, let the present file be placed before Hon‘ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench as regards whether the judgment in Mahesh Gupta’s case (supra) has rightly been interpreted and applied to the ratio of the judgment in Kamal Sharma’s case (supra) especially the last line of para 7 of Mahesh Gupta’s case (supra). In my respectful opinion, the larger Bench may also decide the issue as to whether a court which does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, such court can entertain an application to amend the plaint to bring the suit plaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.

7. After obtaining the appropriate orders of Hon‘ble the Chief Justice, list the matter before the larger Bench for consideration of the issue in question on 26th May, 2016.

8. I note that on the decision by the larger bench as to whether this Court cannot or can entertain and allow the IA No.3857/2016 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the application of the defendant no.2 in IA No.3856/2016 would also stand decided and which is for transfer of the suit to the transferee court having pecuniary jurisdiction.”

The reference to Mahesh Gupta’s case is to Mahesh Gupta Vs. Ranjit Singh AIR 2010 Delhi 4 (DB) and the reference to Kamal Sharma’s case is to Kamal Sharma Vs. Blue Coast Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. 2016 SCC Online Delhi 2261.

2. The facts relating to the suit, for the purpose of this Reference, are that the plaintiff, on or about 6th August, 2009 instituted this suit for the reliefs of (a) declaration that she is the owner and the person entitled to possession of the garage on the right side drive-way of property No.C-63, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi; (b) mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.1 to 3 to remove their lock from the said garage; (c) permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 3 from interfering in the plaintiff‘s use and enjoyment of the said garage; (d) declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the area on the portions above the second floor in the suit property that had been encroached upon by the defendants; (e) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove and demolish the unauthorised construction and encroachment on the rear side of the second floor of the property; (f) recovery of mesne profits of Rs.4,80,000/- and future mesne profits; and, (g) recovery of damages in the sum of Rs.15 lakhs. The total valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction for all the reliefs claimed in the plaint was put at Rs.47,95,530/- and court fees of Rs.56,231/- was paid on the plaint.

3. As per Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (HC Act) as it stood at the time of institution of this suit in the year 2009, this Court, in respect of the territories for the time being included in the Union Territory of Delhi also had ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit, the value of which exceeded Rs.20 lakhs. Accordingly, this suit having total valuation exceeding Rs.20 lakhs was instituted in this Court.

4. The defendants filed a written statement, in which qua the valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction it was inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff had not paid proper court fees and had invoked the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court by joining the valuation for different reliefs and when the valuation of none of the reliefs was above Rs.20 lakhs, being the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court