Plaintiffs in a civil suit can amend valuations to meet jurisdictional requirements when exact amounts are indeterminate.

O R D E R

% 04.08.2025 I.A.10505/2024 [u/O VII Rule 11 CPC]

1. Heard Mr. Manish Sharma and Mr. Sanjeev Puri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the parties on I.A. 10505/2024.

2. Mr. Sharma has taken this Court to the relevant paragraphs, to indicate that the suit is admittedly not properly valued for the purposes of the pecuniary jurisdiction, as the High Court has jurisdiction to decide matters wherein the valuation of the Civil Suit exceeds ₹2 crores. He has taken this court to paragraph no.32, which is extracted as under:-

“32. The valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee is as under:

a. For the relief of injunction, the suit is valued at Rs. 200/-, upon which the requisite fixed court fee ofRs. 20/- has been affixed with the Plaint.

b. For the relief of rendition of accounts, since the Plaintiffs are not aware of the amounts that may fall to their share, thus the relief for the same is tentatively valued at Rs.200/-, for which a court fee of Rs.20/-, is affixed with the Plaint.

The Plaintiff undertakes to pay the necessary and requisite court fee on the amount that is found due to it after rendition of accounts, if the court fee paid already by it is found to be deficient.

c. For the relief of recovery of Rs.1,20,00,000 as 2/3^rd share of the occupation charges/mesne profits from December 2020 till December 2023, upon which an ad-valorem court fee of Rs.1,20,000 is affixed with the Plaint Thus, the total court fee of Rs.1,20,040 is being paid herewith. As stated above, while the valuation of the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction is in excess of Rs.2 crores. The Plaintiffs undertake to pay necessary and requisite court fee on the amount that is found due to it after rendition of accounts, if the court fee paid already by it is found to be deficient.”

3. To substantiate his position, Mr. Sharma has also placed reliance on the decision in Rajinder Singh Bhatia v. Manju Bhatia , [2022 SCC OnLine Del 2497]

4. Mr. Puri, on the other hand, who appears for the plaintiffs, contends that the aforesaid controversy has been settled by this Court in Ramesh Chander Munjal v. Suraj Munjal , [2022 SCC OnLine Del 1045]. He has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph no. 47 of the said decision, where the Court has considered the decision in the case of Surinder Kaur v. S. Rajdev Singh³

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court finds that in Rajinder Singh Bhatia (supra), the suit itself was valued tentatively at ₹50 crores. It is for the aforesaid reasons, the Court, in the facts of that case, has held that whenever a Civil Suit for rendition of account is presented, the plaintiff may not be exactly aware of about the actual amount, and therefore, is entitled for the tentative valuation of the suit.

6. In the instant case, however, the plaintiff, at the relevant paragraphs, has not specifically stated the valuation, so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

7. Mr. Puri, however, then took this Court to paragraph no.18 of the plaint, and then points out that the plaintiff has clearly taken a position that the account of the share of Ms. Sneh Joshi is approximately ₹2.05 crores from the sale of the entire second floor of the subject property. He, therefore, submits that in any case, the rendition of the account is not less than ₹2.05 crores, and this is what his tentative valuation which should be accepted for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.

8. Having considered the aforesaid submission, the Court finds that this Court in the case of Dr Ramesh Chander Munjal (supra), has considered almost similar controversy, and has held as under:-

“47. As regards the objections taken by the contesting defendants that the suit has