HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, J
MURICHANDIYIL JAMAL – Appellant
Versus
M/S ICICI BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER – Respondent
J U D G M E N T
This Regular Second Appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for mandatory injunction. The plaint was rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC), for failure to have the suit valued properly in spite of direction by the court. The decree was affirmed in appeal.
2. Availing financial support from the first defendant Bank, the plaintiff purchased a lorry. Alleging default in repayment of the instalments payable, the first defendant seized the vehicle. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming the following reliefs:- “It is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a decree for mandatory injunction compelling the defendant specifically to deliver the vehicle No.KL 18 B 9800 for immediate possession of the said vehicle on condition of payment of instalments due, besides the cost of this proceedings.”
3. The valuation of the suit as shown in paragraph
8 of the plaint is as hereunder :-
| The value for the relief of Mandatory \ninjunction | 1000\n ` |
| Jurisdiction value | 1000\n ` |
| Court Fee paid U/s 27(c) Act 10/60 | 40\n ` |
4. Issue No.1 raised in the suit was on the sufficiency of the valuation of the suit
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.