Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 347 (CHH)

Sanjaya Kateliha v. Shri Sunil Kumar Kateliha

2008-12-03

D.R.DESHMUKH

body2008
ORDER Submissions of Shri M.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants on admission were heard at length. Reliance was placed on Subhash Chand Jain Vs. Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and others 2000 (3) M.P.L.J. 522 and Raj Kaur W/o Garumukh Singh Randhawa Vs. M/s. Kinetic Gallery and another 2000 (2) M.P.L.J. 72. Impugned order and annexures were perused. (2) The applicants/defendants are aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2008 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur in civil suit No.41-A/2008, whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC filied by the applicants/defendants was dismissed. (3) Brief facts are that the non-applicants/plaintiffs instituted civil suit No.41-A/2008 before the 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur against the applicants/defendants for permanent injunction. It was averred in the plaint that the non-applicants/plaintiffs are the tenants of the applicants/defendants in the Bras Metal Rolling Mill (henceforth the `Mill') under agreement dated 09.07.2007, at a monthly rent of Rs.8,334/-. Lease was granted by the applicants/defendants for a period of 5 years with effect from 09.07.2007 to 08.07.2012. After taking the Mill on lease, the non-applicants/plaintiffs had spent huge amount on maintenance, repairs and establishing electric connection and in making the Mill operational. It was further pleaded that the applicants/defendants were trying to forcibly and illegally interfere in the operation of the Mill by the non- applicants/plaintiffs. The following relief was claimed in the suit. After taking the Mill on lease, the non-applicants/plaintiffs had spent huge amount on maintenance, repairs and establishing electric connection and in making the Mill operational. It was further pleaded that the applicants/defendants were trying to forcibly and illegally interfere in the operation of the Mill by the non- applicants/plaintiffs. The following relief was claimed in the suit. **,v+ ;g fd oknhx.k ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknhx.kksa ds fo#) bl vk'k; dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkos fd izfroknhx.k yht dh vafre frfFk fnukad 08-07-2012 rd oknhx.kksa ds }kjk lapkfyr okn czk'k ,oa jksfyax fey ds lapkyu esa fof/k ds lE;d vuqOe ls vkns'k izkIr fd;s fcuk lor% vius ,tsaVksa ds ek/;e ls fdlh Hkh rjg dk voS/k gLrk{ksi o fo?u ck/kk mRiUu u djsaA ,c+ oknhx.k ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknhx.kksa ds fo#) vU; vkKkfIr tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s fnyk;h tkosA ,l+ oknhx.kksa dks izfroknhx.kksa ls laiw.kZ okn O;; fnyk;k tkosA** (4) In para 11 of the plaint, the suit was valued as under:- **,11+ ;g fd oknhx.k ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkfFkZd {ks=kf/kdkj gsrq izfr"ks/kkRed LFkk;hfu"ks/kkKk gsrq okn dk ewY;kadu 600@& #i;s djrs gS ftl ij 60@& #i;s dk fuf'pr U;k; `kqYd pLik fd;k tkrk gSA** (5) An application was filed by the applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the non- applicants/plaintiffs ought to have valued the suit at the market value of the Mill i.e. at Rs.20,00,000/- and upon such valuation being made, the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur would cease to have jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur has dismissed the application by the impugned order. (6) Under Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 to obtain an injunction, the plaintiff is required to state the amount at which he values the relief sought. The plaintiff is thus at liberty to value the relief of injunction for purposes of Court fees. Since the relief under Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act falls under the category of suits mentioned in Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the valuation of suit for purposes of Court Fees and jurisdiction has to be the same. The plaintiff is thus at liberty to value the relief of injunction for purposes of Court fees. Since the relief under Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act falls under the category of suits mentioned in Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, the valuation of suit for purposes of Court Fees and jurisdiction has to be the same. (7) Ordinarily the liberty of the plaintiff to value relief for injunction has to be respected unless it is shown that the valuation of suit by the plaintiff is unreasonable or arbitrary. It is well settled that the Court Fees payable on the plaint has to be decided on the basis of the allegations and the prayer in the plaint and unless it is shown that the valuation put by the non- applicants/plaintiffs on the relief claimed in the suit is arbitrary or unreasonable or demonstrably under valued, the valuation put by the plaintiff should be accepted. For payment of ad-valorem Court fees on the relief of injunction under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 it has to be shown that there is a nexus between the value of the subject matter of the suit and the relief sought. As in the case of Subhash Chand vs. Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the applicants, the plaintiff had received additional bills from the Electricity Board for Rs.2,14,747/-. A relief of permanent injunction was claimed praying that the Electricity Board be restrained from disconnecting the electric supply. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the plaintiff wanted to avoid the liability to pay a specified amount by seeking relief of injunction, it was held that the plaintiff ought to have paid ad-valorem Court fees on the relief of injunction. No such situation exists in the present case. (8) In the present case, the non-applicants/plaintiffs have simply claimed the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the applicants/defendants from illegally interfering with the operation of the Mill by the non- applicants/plaintiffs. As per averments in the plaint, the non-applicants/plaintiffs are the lessees of the applicants/defendants in relation to the Mill. No such situation exists in the present case. (8) In the present case, the non-applicants/plaintiffs have simply claimed the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the applicants/defendants from illegally interfering with the operation of the Mill by the non- applicants/plaintiffs. As per averments in the plaint, the non-applicants/plaintiffs are the lessees of the applicants/defendants in relation to the Mill. Merely to restrain the applicants/defendants from interfering with the operation of the Mill otherwise than in accordance with law the non-applicants/plaintiffs were neither required to pay ad-valorem Court fees on the value of the Mill nor on the amount spent by them in making the Mill operational. The 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur was thus wholly justified in holding that it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to value the suit on the quantum of money spent by the plaintiff for making the Mill operational. The case of Raj kaur Vs. Kinetic Gallery (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the applicants is distinguishable on facts and does not help the applicants in any manner. In that case, the suit was for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction and not solely for injunction. (9) It is also pertinent to note that the application filed by the applicants/defendants was under Order 7 Rule 11 (d). Under Order 7 Rule 11 (d), the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. No such ground is made out either from the averments in the plaint or from the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. (10) In the result, the 1st Civil Judge, Class-II was wholly justified in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC filed by the applicants/defendants. No illegality or jurisdictional error is seen in the impugned order. The revision being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission.