A plaintiff's discretion in valuing a suit should only be interfered with upon clear evidence of arbitrary or malicious intent; otherwise, the valuation stands as lawful.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A. 4632/2021

1. An application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") has been filed on behalf of the defendant for return of the plaint on the ground of suit valuation.

2. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration for declaring the Resolution no. 4 passed in the National Executive Committee (NEC) Special Meeting no. IPA/NEC Spl. Mtg./02 held on 11.12.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and also for injunction for restraining the defendant Company from giving it effect and operation.

3. The defendant Association has filed a Written Statement. The defendant has asserted in the application that in terms of the Section 15 of CPC, every suit instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. The plaintiffs have grossly overvalued the present suit which has no nexus with the cause of action and is an abuse of process of law. The plaintiffs have dishonestly and intentionally inflated the value of the suit with an object to bring within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Arbitrary and whimsical value of Rs.2,00,01,000/- has been fixed without disclosing any basis. The application is therefore liable to be return under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on Abdul Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid, (1988)2 SCC 575.

5. The plaintiff in its reply to the application has asserted that in a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, it is the discretion of the plaintiff to value its suit according to its own estimation and such valuation is normally accepted. It is only in the cases where it is manifestly and deliberately under-estimated that the Court may examine the correctness of the valuation as affixed by the plaintiff.

6. It is submitted that Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") clearly states that in a suit for a declaratory decree and consequential relief and injunction, the plaintiff shall state the amount at which each relief is being valued. The plaintiff has rightly valued its suit and there is no allegation of undervaluation. It is claimed that the application is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Plaintiff has placed reliance on Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245, and Meenakshi Sundaram Chettiar v. Venkatchalam Chettiar, (1980)1 SCC 616.

8. Submissions heard.

9. Section 15 of the CPC provides for the Courts in which the suit may be instituted. It reads as under:

"Section 15 - Courts in which suits to be instituted - Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it."

10. Competence means having jurisdiction to try. The jurisdiction has reference to (a) subject matter (b) pecuniary valuation and (c) territorial jurisdiction. This Section is a rule of procedure and not of jurisdiction and it does not therefore, oust the jurisdiction of the Court of higher grade who have concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. When a suit triable by a Court of a lower grade, is instituted in a Court of higher grade, the later Court may return the plaint. It is only discretionary on the part of the later Court. Section 15 of CPC is enacted not merely to avoid overcrowding but also for the convenience of the parties and the witnesses who may be examined by them. Where the relief claimed is of injunction which it is