Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal filed by Zuberahmed Maqbool Ansari (original Defendant No.2) against an ad-interim order dated 24.09.2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Interim Application No.2653 of 2020 in Suit (L) No.2648 of 2020. The ad-interim order granted a temporary protective injunction in favor of Respondent No.1, Messrs Devkaran & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (original Plaintiff). The appellant challenged the order solely on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in the Bombay High Court due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit pertained to a Gala ad-measuring 204 sq.mtrs. (carpet area) consisting of ground plus mezzanine floor situated at Nenshi Munji Compound, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Ansa 'C' Building, Saki Naka, Andheri, Mumbai. The appellant argued that the suit property was undervalued and that the actual market value exceeded the pecuniary limits of the High Court. The court examined the valuation of the suit property and the applicable provisions of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. The court held that the suit was indeed undervalued and that the High Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain it. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the ad-interim order was set aside, and the suit was directed to be returned for presentation before the appropriate court. The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the injunction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Suit Valuation - Section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 - The appellant challenged an ad-interim injunction on the sole ground that the suit was not maintainable due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The court examined the valuation of the suit property and held that the suit was undervalued and thus beyond the High Court's pecuniary limits. The appeal was allowed, and the ad-interim order was set aside. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by Respondent No.1 before the Bombay High Court is maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, given the valuation of the suit property.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The ad-interim order dated 24.09.2020 is set aside. The suit is directed to be returned for presentation before the appropriate court having pecuniary jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Pecuniary jurisdiction
- suit valuation
- Bombay Court Fees Act
- 1959
- Section 6
- ad-interim injunction
- maintainability of suit
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (03) 51
Appeal (L) No.3786 of 2020 with Interim Application (L) No.3787 of 2020
S.J. Kathawalla, Milind N. Jadhav
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud i/by Mr. Uttam S. Rane for Appellant, Mr. Karl Tamboly i/by TRD Associates for Respondent No.1
Zuberahmed Maqbool Ansari
Messrs Devkaran & Co., Pvt. Ltd., Shripati Hari Javal, Office of the Sub-Registrar Andheri – 3, Ahmed Hussain Alimulah Chaudhary, Mohd. Asraf Yasin Qureshi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against ad-interim injunction order in a civil suit concerning property dispute.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of ad-interim injunction order on ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the ad-interim order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge granting temporary protective injunction in favor of Respondent No.1.
Previous Decisions
Ad-interim order dated 24.09.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in Interim Application No.2653 of 2020 in Suit (L) No.2648 of 2020.
Issues
Whether the suit is maintainable in the Bombay High Court for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the suit property was undervalued and the actual market value exceeded the pecuniary limits of the High Court, rendering the suit not maintainable.
Respondent No.1 argued that the valuation was correct and the High Court had jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The suit was undervalued and the Bombay High Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain it. Hence, the ad-interim injunction order was liable to be set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present Appeal, the Appellant / original Defendant No.2 has challenged the legality and validity of the ad-interim order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Interim Application No.2653 of 2020 in Suit (L) No.2648 of 2020 granting a temporary protective injunction in favour of Respondent No. 1 / original Plaintiff.
The principal, and only ground on which the order impugned in the present Appeal has been assailed before us, is that the suit is not maintainable in this court due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Procedural History
The suit was filed by Respondent No.1 in the Bombay High Court. An ad-interim injunction was granted on 24.09.2020. The appellant filed the present appeal challenging the order on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959: Section 6
