JUDGMENT Gaurang Kanth, J. (Oral) The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing). C.M. No. 9646/2023 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. RFA 163/2023 3. In the present appeal, the appellants (original plaintiffs) are assailing the impugned judgement and decree dated 03.11.2022 (" Impugned Judgment ") passed by the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ)-05 (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS DJ 915/21 titled as Jay Shankar Kumar and Ors. Versus Capri Global Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr. . 4. Learned Trial Court, vide the impugned judgement, was pleased to reject the suit filed by the appellants on an application filed by the Respondent under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 5. The appellants have filed a certificate as per the High Court Rules stating that complete Trial Court record is placed before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appeal may be heard today itself and no date for hearing of the appeal be fixed as contemplated by sub-rule 1 of Rule 11 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the appellants the appeal is set down for final hearing. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants filed suit for permanent, mandatory injunction and damages to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs against the respondents. Learned Trial Court, vide order dated 26.07.2022, directed the appellant to value the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees and to pay deficient court fees, if any, within 7 days. In order to cure the said defect, the appellant filed an amendment application on 06.10.2022, however, relevant paragraph regarding valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees was not clear. Hence, the said amendment application was returned by the learned Trial Court and the appellant was granted further time to rectify the mistake. On 03.11.2022, proxy counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the main counsel is not available as he is suffering from dengue. However, the learned Trial Court refused to adjourn the matter and rejected the plaint on the ground that despite opportunities appellant failed to rectify the valuation regarding jurisdiction and court fees. 8. On 03.11.2022, proxy counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the main counsel is not available as he is suffering from dengue. However, the learned Trial Court refused to adjourn the matter and rejected the plaint on the ground that despite opportunities appellant failed to rectify the valuation regarding jurisdiction and court fees. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it was an inadvertent bona fide mistake on the part of learned counsel for the appellant that valuation of the suit qua jurisdiction and court fees was not mentioned with clarity. However, in order to rectify the said mistake, he filed an application for amendment of the plaint on 06.10.2022, which was returned by learned Trial Court with direction to file the same with better particulars. 9. Learned counsel further states that on 03.11.2022, the main counsel was on his way to appear before learned Trial Court with the amendment application when the impugned judgment was passed. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant was not negligent in pursuing the matter and it was an inadvertent mistake for which he wants to address the learned Trial Court, which was disallowed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that if he gets one more opportunity, he will rectify the mistake regarding valuation of the suit qua jurisdiction and court fee. 11. This court has examined the complete records placed by the appellant including the orders passed by the learned Trial Court. On perusal of record, it shows that appellant filed the plaint before the learned Trial Court with blanks. The paragraph 18 of the plaint wherein valuation and court fee is required to be mentioned reads as under: "18. That the court fees for the purpose of valuation of mandatory and prohibitory relief is fixed at Rs.________ and court fees for the purpose of valuation of damages is fixed at Rs.__________ and the same has been affixed. This Hon'ble Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit." 12. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 25.11.2021, however, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Hence, learned Trial Court passed the following orders: " Present: None for the Plaintiff. The para no. 18 of the plaint is blank and none is present on behalf of the plaintiff." 13. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 25.11.2021, however, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Hence, learned Trial Court passed the following orders: " Present: None for the Plaintiff. The para no. 18 of the plaint is blank and none is present on behalf of the plaintiff." 13. The matter was again listed before the Court on 06.01.2022, however, the appellant sought an adjournment on the ground that the main counsel was suffering from fever. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 04.02.2021 and the learned Trial Court issued notice to the defendants. However, no steps were taken by the appellants to serve the defendants. 14. The matter was again listed on 11.04.2022 and 04.06.2022. However, learned Trial Court was on leave. The matter was taken up for hearing on 26.07.2022 and the learned Trial Court pointed out that the suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees. The order dated 26.07.2022 reads as follows: "A perusal of record reveals that the present suit has not been valued by the plaintiff either for the purpose of jurisdiction or for the purpose of court fee and though it has been so observed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court in Order dated 25.11.2021, however, subsequently, the matter was taken up to VC on 04.02.2022, at the request of Counsel for plaintiff, defendants were directed to be summoned. No steps till date have been taken by the plaintiff for service of defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to value the present suit properly for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee and to pay the deficient court fee, if any, within seven days. Put up for consideration on the maintainability of the present suit before this Court in view of provisions of the Commercial Court Act 2015 on 06.10.2022." 15. However, the appellant failed to rectify the said mistake within the time stipulated by the learned Trial Court. The matter was again taken up for hearing on 06.10.2022. On the said date, learned Trial Court was pleased to grant last and final opportunity to the appellant to comply with the order dated 26.07.2022. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Trial Court on 03.11.2022. Even on 03.11.2022, the order dated 26.07.2022 was not complied with. The matter was again taken up for hearing on 06.10.2022. On the said date, learned Trial Court was pleased to grant last and final opportunity to the appellant to comply with the order dated 26.07.2022. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Trial Court on 03.11.2022. Even on 03.11.2022, the order dated 26.07.2022 was not complied with. The order sheet reflects that on 03.11.2022, proxy counsel for the appellants was seeking an adjournment on the ground that the main counsel was suffering from dengue. Hence, considering the laxity on behalf of the appellants, learned Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The impugned judgment reads as under: "A request for adjournment is made on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground that main counsel for plaintiffs is not available today as he is suffering from dengue. A perusal of record reveals that the suit has neither been valued by the plaintiffs for the purpose of jurisdiction nor for the purpose of court fee despite repeated opportunities. Vide Order dated 26.07.2022, plaintiffs were directed to value the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee within seven days, however, the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the aforesaid directions and finally, vide order dated 06.10.2022 last and final opporutnity was given to the plaintiffs for compliance of Order dated 26.07.2022, however, once again plaintiffs have failed to value the suit either for the purpose of jurisdiction or for the purpose of court fee. The plaint is thus rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance". 16. At this juncture, it is imperative to examine Order VII Rule 11 CPC as also proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC. "11. The plaint is thus rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance". 16. At this juncture, it is imperative to examine Order VII Rule 11 CPC as also proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC. "11. Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; 1 [ (e) where it is not filed in duplicate;] 2 (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]." 17. It is evident from the plain reading of Order VII Rule 11 CPC that the time fixed for correction of the valuation shall not be extended unless the Court, for the reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. However, in the present case, no such exceptional circumstances were pleaded or urged by the appellant, which require the court to continuously extend the time fixed for correction of the valuation. However, in the present case, no such exceptional circumstances were pleaded or urged by the appellant, which require the court to continuously extend the time fixed for correction of the valuation. Needless to mention that after recording the defect in valuation, vide order dated 25.11.2021, the learned Trial Court has categorically directed on 26.07.2022 to determine the valuation of the suit properly and to pay the deficient court fees. Despite opportunity granted by the learned Trial Court on 06.10.2022, no steps were taken by the appellant for compliance of order dated 26.07.2022 and the suit was rejected vide impugned judgment dated 03.11.2022 as mentioned above. 18. It is further noted that the suit was filed in the month of November, 2021 with blanks in paragraph. Learned Trial Court pointed out the defects on 25.11.2021. Even after one year, the appellant failed to correct the valuation. Further, on 03.11.2022, proxy counsel appearing for the appellant was seeking an adjournment on the ground that the main counsel was suffering from dengue. However, in the present appeal, the appellant pleaded that the proxy counsel was asking for pass over. The statement of facts, as pleaded by the appellant in the present appeal, is contrary to the documents on record. This court deprecates the conduct of the appellants. 19. This court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint. Hence, no interference is called for. 20. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.