Rajinder Singh Bhatia vs. Manju Bhatia Page 1 of 5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 27^th July, 2022

Decided on: 22^nd August, 2022

+

CS(OS) 172/2021

RAJINDER SINGH BHATIA

S/o Late Sh. Har Gopal Bhatia

R/o B-43, 44, Double Storey,

Ramesh Nagar,

New Delhi-110015.

..... Petitioner

Represented by:

Mr.

Abhishek

Aggarwal,

Advocate.

versus

MANJU BHATIA

D/o Late Sh. Har Gopal Bhatia

R/o B-43, Double Storey,

Ramesh Nagar,

New Delhi-110015.

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr. Manoj Singh, Advocate

for Claimant.

Ms. Sakshi Popli, Standing

Counsel for MCD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

I.A.5682/2022 (For Rejection of the Suit)

1. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, has been filed on

behalf of defendant for rejection of the plaint on account of payment of

deficient court fees.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003139

Rajinder Singh Bhatia vs. Manju Bhatia Page 2 of 5

2. It is submitted that the plaintiff has filed a suit for Permanent and

Mandatory Injunction and has valued his suit for Rs.2.5 crores for the

purpose of jurisdiction. However, he has paid the fixed court fee for

Mandatory and Permanent Injunction by fixing the valuation at Rs.500/-

each. It is asserted that once the valuation of the suit property has been

fixed at Rs.2.5 crores, the court fee also has to be necessarily paid on the

same amount. Therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected on account of

deficient court fee. The defendant has relied upon the case of Bharat

Association (Regd.) & Ors. CS(OS) No.689/2004 decided on 12^th January,

2006. 4.

The plaintiff in his reply has submitted that the suit has been correctly

valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee has been paid correctly

and there is not merit in the application.

5. In support of his assertions, the plaintiff has relied upon the case of

Benny Mathew 2005(7) SCC 667, Puneet Chaddha vs. B.K. Chaddha CRP

No.152/2009 decided on 01^st December, 2009, Padmavati Mahajan vs.

Yogender Mahajan & Anr. 2008(152) DLT 363.

6.

Submissions heard.

7. The plaintiff has filed a suit for Declaration, Permanent and

Mandatory injunction for eviction of defendant and for recovery of Mesne

Profits/ Damages on account of unauthorized occupation of the suit premises

i.e D-43, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi, by the defendant. The basis

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003139

Rajinder Singh Bhatia vs. Manju Bhatia Page 3 of 5

of the claim is that the plaintiff and defendant are the real brother and sister.

However, disputes arose between the parties and a suit bearing CS(OS)

3380/2015 was filed for partition. The suit was decreed in favour of the

plaintiff vide Order dated 12^th March, 2020 on the basis of the settlement

between the parties in terms of an MoU dated 06^th March, 2020. According

to the MoU, the parties to the suit and the sisters had clearly stated that the

plaintiff would be 100% owner of the suit property. The defendant had also

promised to vacate the subject property. However, the defendant has failed

to vacate the property and hence, the plaintiff has filed a suit for Mandatory

Injunctions for directing the defendant to remove herself and her belongings

from the suit property aside from other reliefs. The plaintiff had valued his

suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction at Rs.2.5 crores while the relief

of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction at fixed Rs.500/- each

and court fee has been paid accordingly.

8. The sole objection is that once the valuation of the suit has been done

at Rs.2.5 crore for the purpose