The court emphasized the necessity of transferring suits to higher courts when original jurisdiction is required, ensuring the timely pursuit of justice even when procedural complexities arise.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 2056/2020 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

TR.P.(C.) 9/2020

3. The petitioner who is the plaintiff in suit being CS 9551/2016 pending before the Additional District Judge-06, (hereinafter referred to as ADJ) South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, seeks transfer of the said suit to this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid suit wherein the petitioner has prayed for declaration, joint possession, partition and permanent injunction was initially filed before this Court in the year 2016 and the pecuniary valuation thereof, was stated to be Rs.1,40,00,000/-. The suit came to be transferred to the Court of the Ld. District Judge after the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court.

5. However, after the suit was transferred to the District Court, upon an application being moved by respondents no.1 and 2 who are defendants in the suit, an order came to be passed by Ld. ADJ on 13.09.2019 holding therein that on the basis of the averments made in the plaint, the pecuniary valuation of the suit was Rs.2,40,00,000/-. The matter was thereafter adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to obtain instructions as to whether the petitioner was inclined to exercise the option available under Order VII Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC), for return of the plaint.

6. At this stage, the petitioner realising, that on account of the order passed by the Ld. ADJ on 13.09.2019 holding the pecuniary valuation of the suit as being more than Rs.2,00,00,000/-, it is only this Court which would have the necessary original jurisdiction to try the suit. She, therefore, preferred the present transfer petition in which notice was issued on 20.01.2020. On the said date, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, 2 and 5 had duly accepted notice but till date, no reply has been filed by any of the respondents. The matter was thereafter repeatedly adjourned to await the service of respondent no. 4 who was, as noted in the last order, eventually served dasti.

7. Today, when the petition is taken up for disposal, even though no counter affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and 5 seek to oppose the petition by contending that the petitioner could have not approached this Court at this stage when the Ld. ADJ had already passed an order holding therein that since the pecuniary valuation of the suit was more than Rs.2,00,00,000/-, the plaint was required to be returned for filing in the Court having necessary pecuniary jurisdiction and therefore, there was no pending suit before the Ld. ADJ of which the transfer is being sought. By placing reliance on the order dated 30.11.2019, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 submit that while dismissing the petitioner's application seeking review of it's earlier order dated 13.09.2019, the Ld. ADJ had clearly observed that the plaint was required to be returned. They, therefore contend that merely because the Court, instead of returning the plaint on the same date, had adjourned the matter for instructions as to whether the petitioner desired to exercise the option under Order VIII Rule 10A CPC, would not change the position that the plaint had already been directed to be returned. They, therefore seek dismissal of the petition.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the learned ADJ had come to a conclusion that the pecuniary valuation being beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court, the plaint was required to b