The court affirmed that jurisdiction and suit valuations must be based solely on amended pleadings in accordance with procedural laws, rejecting external assertions not contained in the plaint.

Headnote:(A) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Order VII Rule 101 of the CPC - Suit for possession - Defendant's application for return of plaint rejected - No justification for interference with ADJ's decision as the application was limited to return of plaint and did not address valuation issues - Court upheld the valuation of the plaint at Rs.36,00,000/- as unamended till date. (Paras 1, 5, 24)

(B) Jurisdiction and Procedure - Applicability of provisions regarding suit valuation under CPC maintained; ADJ's discretion remained unchallenged. (Paras 3, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the decision of the ADJ on the grounds of jurisdiction and suit valuation in a property possession case. The respondent claimed possession valued at Rs.36,00,000/- with a damages claim of Rs.3,15,000/-. (Para 7)

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims of jurisdiction based on alleged valuation misrepresentations. As the plaint valuation was not amended, it remained effective. (Paras 6, 24)

Issues: The main issues were whether the ADJ erred in dismissing the plaint return application and the implications of valuation discrepancies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the learned ADJ's reasoning that the suit’s valuation should be based solely on the original unamended plaint, rejecting any implications of external assertions. (Paras 21, 24)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. judicial review of application under cpc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. limitations on adj's powers under cpc. (Para 4 , 5 , 16 , 20)
3. overview of the procedural history. (Para 6 , 10 , 12 , 13)
4. details of the valuation controversy. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 14 , 15)
5. arguments raising contradictions in valuation admissions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. deciding application based solely on plaint assertions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
7. conclusion and dismissal of petition. (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 4th July 2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") on an application under Order VII Rule 101 preferred by the petitioner, as the defendant before the learned ADJ, in Civ. DJ 9500/2016 (Amrik Singh Suri v. Harminder Singh Suri).

2. At the outset, it is important to note the prayer in the application of the petitioner, under Order VII Rule 10¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which reads thus:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to either firstly frame a Preliminary Issue with regard to the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and also suit being within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court and adjudicate upon same and/or to hear and adjudicate upon the present application straightway and thereupon direct return of plaint to Plaintiff as per law.

Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff."

3. The impugned order dated 4th July 2022 clearly adjudicates only the prayer for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 101 of the CPC. In fact, the application of the petitioner, having been preferred under Order VII Rule 101 of the CPC, should strictly have been limited only to the prayer of return of the plaint.

4. Nonetheless, as the application also invokes Section 151 of the CPC, and contains an alternate prayer that a preliminary issue be framed with regard to valuation of the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as well as whether the suit was amenable to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned ADJ, it is clarified that the impugned order is being treated as an order limited to the prayer for return of the suit under Order VII Rule 101 of the CPC, and its justifiability being examined in that regard. The alternate prayer contained in the petitioner's application, "that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to either firstly frame a Preliminary Issue with regard to the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and also suit being within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court and adjudicate upon same" is not being decided by the learned ADJ and this Court, too, expresses no opinion in that regard. It shall be open for the petitioner to urge the said prayer by way of a separate application before the learned ADJ and, if the petitioner chooses to do so, the learned ADJ shall adjudicate on the said prayer in accordance with law. No opinion is being expressed regarding the merits of the said prayer.

5. Adverting, now, to the decision of the learned ADJ to reject the petitioner's prayer for return of the suit instituted by the respondent under Order VII Rule 101 of the CPC, having perused the material on record and heard Mr. Preet Jeet Singh at length, this Court does not find any justifiable cause to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Given the limited peripheries of the dispute, no detailed allusion to facts is necessary. A brief recital would suffice.

7. Civ DJ 9500/2016 was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner, seeking possession of the property situated at B-2/60, Janak Puri, New Delhi (hereinafter