Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 801 (HP)

Om Parkash Mehta v. Saroj Bala

2014-06-26

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
Judgment Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The present petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for setting aside/quashing the order dated 21.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una, in Civil Suit No.8/8 of 2013, titled Om Parkash Mehta versus Saroj Bala, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Una, dismissed the application for re-transfer of the Civil Suit to this Court. 2. Undisputedly, the suit has not been transferred by the order of the Court and it appears that the transfer had been effected in view of the notification No.HHC/PJ/93-I dated 03.10.2013 issued by this Court on its administrative side enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of all the Courts in the State including this Court and also subordinate Courts. In terms of the notification issued by this Court, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge is up to Rs.30 lacs, while a perusal of the plaint would show that the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction had been affixed at Rs.47,74,000/-. Infact, the plaintiff even approached the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Una, for having the records of the case re-transferred to this Court, however, the said application was dismissed by according the following reasons:- “The applicants-plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 26.3.2004 and the period for the performance of agreement was further extended vide agreement dated 30.7.2005. The main prayer of the applicants-plaintiffs is regarding specific performance of contract and in alternative plaintiffs sought recovery of Rs.27 lacs along with interest. The plaintiffs in para 13 of the plaint have added Rs.21 lacs spent by them for development of the land and they also sought recovery of that amount and thereby enhanced the value of the suit from Rs.27 lacs to Rs.47,74,000/-. From the perusal of the evidence and the pleadings of the parties, the court is fully satisfied that the plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of the contract where the agreement to sell was only for Rs.27 lacs. So the actual valuation of the suit must be on the amount mentioned in the agreement and not on the amount arbitrarily added by the plaintiffs just to over value their suit. So the actual valuation of the suit must be on the amount mentioned in the agreement and not on the amount arbitrarily added by the plaintiffs just to over value their suit. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in a case Devendra Singh vs. Bhole Ram reported in AIR 1991 All 157 has referred to a case reported in AIR 1932 All 413 titled as Inavat Husain v. Bashir Ahmad. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that: “Where the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is contested, the value must be determined by the Court, and where the valuation can be ascertained correctly, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to put an arbitrary value upon his claim nor can he be allowed to overvalue or undervalue his claim with a view to choose his forum.” This seems to suggest that it is not open to the party to put his own valuation upon the relief he seeks for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, or, in other words, although a party may put his own valuation for the purpose of paying court-fees under the Court Fees Act, when it comes to the question of jurisdiction of the Court, it would not be bound by the valuation put by the plaintiff upon his own relief, but would itself determine what the proper value is. The valuation of the suits for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction has to be the same and the plaintiff cannot arbitrarily value the suit for purposes of jurisdiction to choose the forum for filing his suit in a Court and overvalue the suit for purposes of court fees so as to confer jurisdiction in the Hon’ble High Court. If this would be a case then the people like Ambani, Tata and Birla will fix court fee of their own choice and choose the High Court or Supreme Court for redressal of their grievances. As per section 15 of C.P.C. the suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.” It is against this order that the plaintiff-petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. I have carefully and meticulously gone through the records, contents of the plaint as also the impugned order. As per section 15 of C.P.C. the suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.” It is against this order that the plaintiff-petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. I have carefully and meticulously gone through the records, contents of the plaint as also the impugned order. It is distressing to note as to how the learned Court has gone over-board to reject the application of the plaintiff-petitioner by going into question of valuation of the suit. There was no jurisdiction vested with the learned Additional District Judge to have gone into this question at this stage, particularly, when he was dealing with a case of transfer to this Court based upon value affixed on the plaint. The valuation affixed on the plaint had to be seen on its face value, more particularly, there was no judicious application of mind at the instance of this Court at the time when the records of the case had been transmitted and sent to the Court of the concerned District Judge which admittedly was by way of administrative order and not by way of judicial order. Therefore, even this observation that “the Hon’ble High Court has rightly sent the present suit to the Court of District Judge on account of increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge up to Rs.30 lacs” is not only totally misplaced, but extraneous to the records. Accordingly, the order dated 21.02.2014 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is quashed and set aside. 4. The learned Court below is directed to re-transfer the entire records of Civil Suit No.8/8 of 2013 titled Om Parkash Mehta versus Saroj Bala immediately to this Court and in no event later than by 15th July, 2014. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court. 5. Pending application (s), if any, stands dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.