Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bharat Bhushan Gupta, filed a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction and recovery of damages against the respondents, Pratap Narain Verma and another, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi. The suit pertained to a plot of land measuring 252 sq. yards, where the appellant claimed ownership and alleged that the respondents were gratuitous licensees who refused to vacate. The plaint valued the suit at Rs. 250 for each injunction relief and Rs. 1 lac for damages, totaling Rs. 1,00,500. During the plaintiff's cross-examination, he stated that the market value of the suit property was around Rs. 1.8 crores. Based on this statement, the contesting defendant (respondent No. 1) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that only the plaint averments are to be considered for such an application, and the plaint was properly valued. The High Court, however, reversed this order and directed the return of the plaint for filing in the appropriate court, relying on the plaintiff's cross-examination statement and the decision in Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh. The Supreme Court, in appeal, set aside the High Court's order, holding that for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint is to be examined, and not the evidence or the defendant's pleadings. The Court noted that the suit had already been decreed on merits and an appeal was pending, and thus the issue of jurisdiction was academic. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored the Trial Court's order, and left all other issues open for the First Appellate Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - The question was whether the plaint could be rejected for want of pecuniary jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's statement in cross-examination about the market value of the suit property, when the plaint was valued according to the reliefs claimed. The Supreme Court held that for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments are to be considered, and not the evidence or pleadings of the defendant. The High Court erred in relying on the plaintiff's cross-examination statement to order return of the plaint. (Paras 3.10, 4.1, 5) B) Civil Procedure - Suit Valuation - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - The suit was for mandatory and prohibitory injunction and recovery of damages, valued at Rs. 250 for each injunction relief and Rs. 1 lac for damages. The plaintiff in cross-examination stated the market value of the property was around Rs. 1.8 crores. The Supreme Court held that the valuation for jurisdiction is determined by the relief claimed, not the market value of the property. The Trial Court had correctly rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Paras 3.4, 3.9, 3.10, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in ordering return of the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction based on a statement made by the plaintiff in cross-examination regarding the market value of the suit property, when the plaint had been valued according to the reliefs claimed.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 18.03.2019, and restored the order of the Trial Court dated 11.07.2018 rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court left all other issues open for the First Appellate Court.
Law Points
- Plaint valuation for pecuniary jurisdiction is determined by the relief claimed
- not by the market value of the property
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC application must be decided on plaint averments alone
- evidence cannot be considered
