Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Stono Craft Abrasives, filed an injunctive suit in O.S.No.2278/1990 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. Subsequently, the plaint was amended to include a declaration of title. The City Civil Court, by order dated 2.1.2008, held that the market value of the property in 2008 was Rs.2,66,085/- and directed the petitioner to pay court fee accordingly. The petitioner paid the court fee. However, the City Civil Court later returned the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, as the value exceeded its limit. The petitioner then re-presented the plaint before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapur, who by order dated 24.08.2018 directed the petitioner to value the suit property as on the date of re-presentation, i.e., 2013, and pay court fee accordingly. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court framed the issue of whether valuation should be as on the original filing date or the re-presentation date. The petitioner argued that since the plaint was returned on the ground of jurisdiction, the suit should be deemed to have been instituted on the original date. The respondents contended that upon return and re-presentation, the suit is a fresh institution. The High Court, relying on the principle that a plaint returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is not a continuation of the original suit but a fresh filing, held that the valuation must be as on the date of re-presentation. The court noted that the petitioner had already paid court fee on the earlier valuation, but that was before the wrong court. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Return of Plaint - Valuation - Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Section 7(i) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - When a plaint is returned for want of jurisdiction and re-presented before the proper court, the valuation of the suit property must be as on the date of re-presentation, not the original filing date - The court held that the plaintiff cannot claim the benefit of the earlier valuation when the plaint is returned and re-filed, as the suit is deemed to be instituted only upon re-presentation before the jurisdictional court (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
When the plaint is returned for want of jurisdiction of the court, and later the same is re-presented before the jurisdictional court, whether the subject matter of the suit has to be valued as on the date the plaint was originally presented to the court which returned it or on the date when it is re-presented before the jurisdictional court?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapur, dated 24.08.2018, directing the petitioner to value the suit property as on the date of re-presentation of the plaint.
Law Points
- Valuation of suit property
- Return of plaint for want of jurisdiction
- Re-presentation of plaint
- Date of valuation
- Order VII Rule 10 CPC
- Section 7(i) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act
- 1958
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (03) 27
Writ Petition No.42700 of 2018 (GM-CPC)
Sri. Nagaraja S for petitioner; Sri. K B Monesh Kumar for R1; Smt. K M Archana for Sri. H S Dwarakanath for R3
The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, The Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Smt.Anita
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapur, directing re-valuation of suit property as on the date of re-presentation of plaint after return for want of jurisdiction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 24.08.2018 in O.S.No.279/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapur.
Filing Reason
The trial court directed the petitioner to value the suit property as on the date of re-presentation (2013) instead of the original filing date (1990), resulting in higher court fee.
Previous Decisions
City Civil Court, Bengaluru, by order dated 2.1.2008, held market value as Rs.2,66,085/- and directed payment of court fee; later returned plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Trial court at Doddaballapur passed the impugned order on 24.08.2018.
Issues
Whether the valuation of suit property should be as on the date of original presentation of plaint or on the date of re-presentation after return for want of jurisdiction?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that since the plaint was returned on the ground of jurisdiction, the suit should be deemed to have been instituted on the original date, and valuation should be as on that date.
Respondents contended that upon return and re-presentation, the suit is a fresh institution, and valuation must be as on the date of re-presentation.
Ratio Decidendi
When a plaint is returned for want of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and re-presented before the proper court, the suit is deemed to be instituted only on the date of re-presentation. Therefore, the valuation of the suit property must be as on that date, not the original filing date.
Judgment Excerpts
The short question of law that falls for consideration of this court in the case at hands is as under: When the plaint is returned for want of jurisdiction of the court, and later the same is re-presented before the jurisdictional court, whether the subject matter of the suit has to be valued as on the date the plaint was originally presented to the court which returned it or on the date when it is re-presented before the jurisdictional court ?
The above question arises in the following fact matrix: (a) There was an injunctive suit in O.S.No.2278/1990; it was filed by the petitioner; subsequently, the plaint was amended inter alia for a declaration of title; the City Civil Court, Bengaluru vide order dated 2.1.2008 held that the market value of the property in the year 2008 when the amendment of plaint was sanctioned, was Rs.2,66,085/- and directed the petitioner to pay court fee accordingly.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed O.S.No.2278/1990 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru for injunction. Plaint was amended for declaration of title. City Civil Court on 2.1.2008 determined market value as Rs.2,66,085/- and directed court fee payment. Later, the plaint was returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Petitioner re-presented the plaint before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapur as O.S.No.279/2013. The trial court on 24.08.2018 directed valuation as on date of re-presentation. Petitioner challenged this order by writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VII Rule 10
- Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958: Section 7(i)
