Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from an order dated 12 October 2022 passed by the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, allowing Notice of Motion No. 1797/2021 filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), returning the plaint in S.C. Suit No. 112 of 2021 for presentation before the Bombay High Court on the ground that the suit fell beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The appellant-plaintiff, a trust owning land at Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai, filed the suit seeking a prohibitory injunction against the defendant from raising construction on the trust property. The defendant claimed a right of way under a Deed of Additional Right of Way dated 4 November 2020 executed by one of the trustees. The plaintiff amended the plaint to challenge the deed. The defendant filed the notice of motion contending that the deed was valued at Rs. 1,95,00,000/- (stamp duty paid Rs. 5,85,000/-), and thus the suit should be valued at that amount, exceeding the City Civil Court's pecuniary limit of Rs. 1 crore. The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the suit was properly valued under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 at Rs. 1,00,000/- for court fees and jurisdiction. The City Civil Court allowed the motion, returning the plaint. The Bombay High Court, in appeal, held that the City Civil Court erred in going beyond the plaint allegations to determine valuation. The court reiterated that for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, the court must look at the plaint as presented; if the plaint discloses a cause of action and the valuation is not demonstrably false or mala fide, the court cannot return the plaint. The plaintiff's valuation under Section 6(iv)(j) for a declaratory suit without consequential relief is generally accepted. The court found no material to show that the plaintiff's valuation was arbitrary or unreasonable. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the City Civil Court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Return of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 10 CPC - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - The court can order return of plaint only if it lacks jurisdiction on the face of the plaint and cannot go beyond the plaint allegations to determine valuation - The plaintiff's valuation in the plaint is generally accepted for the purpose of jurisdiction unless it is demonstrably false or mala fide - Held that the City Civil Court erred in relying on the stamp duty paid on the deed to conclude that the suit was undervalued (Paras 1-10). B) Court Fees Act - Valuation for Jurisdiction - Section 6(iv)(j) of Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 - Suit for declaration without consequential relief - The plaintiff's valuation for court fees and jurisdiction under Section 6(iv)(j) is generally the same, and the court cannot substitute its own valuation unless the plaintiff's valuation is arbitrary or unreasonable - Held that the suit for declaration that the deed is not binding on the trust falls under Section 6(iv)(j) and the plaintiff's valuation at Rs. 1,00,000/- for court fees and jurisdiction is not shown to be arbitrary (Paras 11-20). C) Civil Procedure - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - City Civil Court - The pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Mumbai is up to Rs. 1 crore - The suit valued at Rs. 1,00,000/- for jurisdiction is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court - Held that the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the City Civil Court was justified in returning the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC on the ground that the suit was undervalued and fell beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 12 October 2022 passed by the City Civil Court is set aside. The City Civil Court is directed to proceed with S.C. Suit No. 112 of 2021 in accordance with law. Interim Application No. 30423 of 2022 is disposed of.
Law Points
- Valuation for jurisdiction is determined by plaintiff's valuation in plaint
- City Civil Court cannot go beyond plaint allegations to determine pecuniary jurisdiction
- Order 7 Rule 10 CPC applies only when court lacks jurisdiction on face of plaint
- Maharashtra Court Fees Act 1959 Section 6(iv)(j) applies to suits for declaration without consequential relief
