The appellant has the right to decide the value of the suit, but the court fee must be paid on the same amount as the valuation for jurisdiction. If the trial court finds a deficit in court fee, it should give the appellant an opportunity to rectify it, rather than dismissing the suit.

JUDGMENT :

Gaurang Kanth, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

C.M. Nos. 5027/2023 & 5028/2023 (Exemptions)

1. Applications are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

RFA 84/2023

3. At the outset itself, the appellant states that he has filed all the relevant documents, which are required for the adjudication of the present appeal. Hence, with the consent to the learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is taken up for final disposal.

4. The appellant (original plaintiff) is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi in CS No.739/2022 titled as `Bhim Singh vs. Rajiv Gupta etc.'.

5. Vide the impugned judgment the learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the appellant holding that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the same.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Section 4 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887 read with Volume I Chapter 3 Part-C of Delhi High Court Rules stipulates that valuation of immovable property should be determined on the basis of value of immovable property. The appellant, being the dominus litis, valued the suit for Rs.1,36,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Six Lacs only) for the jurisdictional purpose. Hence, the suit was well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Smt. Sheila Devi & Ors. vs. Shri Kishan Lal Kalra & Ors., ILR (1974) II Delhi 491; Shakuntala Rani vs. Rajesh Bhatt (Deceased) Thr. LRs., 80 (1999) DLT 98 (DB) and Veena Bahl & Ors. vs. Manmohan Bahl & Ors., 238 (2017) DLT 281.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even if the Trial Court was of the view that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit, the right course would have been to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the learned Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. In order to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on `Vijay Kumar Sachdev & Anr. vs. Baldev Raj Bhutani & Anr.', 1992 SCC OnLine Delhi 1990.

8. This Court has examined the plaint.

9. The appellant filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. Regarding the court fee, the appellant in his plaint stated as follows:

"15. That the suit property is measuring about 1300 Sqr. Yards and the total consideration amount had paid to its previous owner by the land lord of the suit property is Rs.1,36,00,000/- and it is less than 2,00,00,000/- hence this this (sic) Hon'ble Court has the Jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

16. That the suit is valued for the relief of mandatory and permanent injunctions are at Rs.260/- (Rs.130/- + Rs.130/-), upon which the plaintiff has paid fixed court fee of Rs.26/- (Rs.13/- + Rs.13/-)."

10. From the perusal of the plaint, it transpires that for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction, he valued the suit for Rs.1,36,00,000/- and for permanent and mandatory injunction, he valued it for Rs.260/-, however, he paid the court fee of Rs.26/- for the prayer of mandatory injunction. Hence, in these circumstances, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant holding that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit.

11. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CS(OS) 172/2021 titled as `Rajinder Singh Bhatia vs. Manju Bhatia' had an occasion to deal with an identical issue. In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. He valued his suit for Rs.2.5 Crores for the purpose of jurisdiction and affixed only the fixed court fee for mandatory and permanent injunction by valuing it for Rs.500/-. In these circumstances, this Court, vide o