A.No.2839 of 2022

A.No.2839

of 2022

in

C.S.No.77 of 2022

C.SARAVANAN, J.

This application has been filed by the defendant to reject the plaint

filed in the above suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It is the specific

case of the applicant/defendant that the suit has been over valued to contrive

the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore the suit is also barred under law

and therefore the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of

CPC. Specifically, a reference is made to Section 12 (1)(a) of the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the requirements contemplated in Order

VII Rule 2A of CPC has amended for the purpose of Commercial Courts

Act, 2015.

2.It is submitted that the plaint is silent regarding the calculation of

interest as required under Order VII Rule 2A of CPC has amended for the

purpose of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

3.The learned counsel for the applicant/defendant has relied upon the

decision of the Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) in the case of Vinod

Kumar Tamrakar Vs. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal in W.P.No.16296 of

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.2839 of 2022

2005, wherein, it has been held the objection of the defendant/petitioner is

that the suit has been over-valued in an arbitrary manner with a mala fide

intention of depriving the defendant/petitioner from his right to appeal to the

Court of District Judge. Whatever the objection may be, but it is amply clear

that the objection of the defendant/petitioner being about over-valuation, is

not covered by Clause (b) of Rule 11 of Order VII of Code of Civil

Procedure Code. This clause seems to be inserted to protect the revenue of

the state and does not seem to have been inserted for giving a tool in the

hand of the defendant to oppose the suit on the ground of over-valuation.

4.Another reference is also made to the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Srihari Hanum Andas Totala VS Hemant

Vithal Kamat (2021) 9 SCC 99. Relevant portion of the order reads as

under:

“19.At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to the

decisions that particularly deal with the question whether res

judicata can be the basis or ground for rejection of the

plaint. In Kamala v. K.T.Eshwara Sa, the trial Judge had

allowed an application for rejection of the plaint in a suit for

partition and this was affirmed by the High Court.

S.B.Sinha, J. speaking for the two-Judge Bench examined

the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and observed:

21.Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has

limited application. It must be shown that the suit

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.2839 of 2022

is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must

be drawn from the averments made in the plaint.

Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our

opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a

given case, an application for rejection of the plaint

may be filed on more than one ground specified in

various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to that

effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant

for invoking Clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the

Code are the averments made in the plaint. Fort

that purpose, there cannot be any addition or

subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part

of a court can be invoked at different stages and

under different provisions of the Code. Order 7

Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2 is

another.”

5.It is submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court has been contrive

and therefore the plaint is liable to be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11

of CPC.

6.The application is opposed by the respondent/plaintiff. Specifically,

it is stated that as far as High Court is concerned, Order 49 Rule 3 of CPC is

relevant. It is submitted that as per the Order 49 Rule 3(i) of CPC, Rule 10,

11, Clauses (b) & (c) of Order VII are not applicable.

7.Therefore, the question of either return of plaint under Order VII

3/7

https: