Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 84 (PNJ)

Seth Ram Richa Mal Charitable Trust v. Ram Kishan

2018-01-10

FATEH DEEP SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Fateh Deep Singh, J.:- The present petitioner/Seth Ram Richa Mal CharitableTrust, Fatehpur and another, the then plaintiffs, filed against the defendant,now respondent suit for possession by way of ejectment from one shopdetailed in the plaint situated in village Fathepur, Tehsil Pundri, DistrictKaithal. The precise grounds were that plaintiffs were in need of suitproperty for personal requirement and they did not want the defendant tocontinue any more as tenant. It was during the course of proceedings beforethe Court below an application under Order VII Rule XI CPC was movedby the defendant/applicant for rejection of the plaint on the grounds ofinsufficient court fees having been affixed, therefore, suit being undervalued. It is through the impugned orders dated 19.07.2017 the Court oflearned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kaithal has held that the plaintiffshave not affixed the appropriate court fees and that is how the plaintiffshave knocked at the doors of this Court by invoking the provisions ofSection 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. Learned counselfor the two sides are not at dispute as to the relationship of landlord andtenant and ground for which the ejectment of the tenant has been sought.Though, a close look at the copy of the plaint Annexure P/1 spells out thepoor manner in which the suit and the pleadings have been carried out, howand by what means the plaintiffs have valued their suit and by what mannerthe court fees has been affixed. Learned counsel for the parties do notdispute that the provisions of Section 7(XI)(cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870by virtue of which a suit for specific performance for the recovery ofimmovable property from a tenant, the amount of the rent of the immovableproperty to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date ofpresenting the plaint is the mode of valuation. The plaintiffs are seekingejectment of the defendant from a shop which is located in a place where theHaryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is inapplicable andit is the case of the plaintiffs that the rent is Rs.2500/- per month. The plaintiffs are seekingejectment of the defendant from a shop which is located in a place where theHaryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is inapplicable andit is the case of the plaintiffs that the rent is Rs.2500/- per month. In thelight of the well settled law, at this juncture, it is the plaint which is to begone into and not what the defendant has to say in his reply and, therefore,by that analogy the plaintiffs are supposed to value their suit according tothe amount of rent of this immovable property which is a shop payable forthe year next before the date of presenting the plaint. 3. In the light of the concurrence shown by the learnedcounsel for the two sides as the learned counsel for the respondent has notoffered much resistance to this, the impugned orders are modified to thiseffect holding that the plaintiffs are supposed to value their suit according tothe amount of rent of this immovable property which is a shop payable forthe year next before the date of presenting the plaint. 4. The present revision petition stands disposed off inthose terms.