SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52724

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top