Pradipta Mazumdar vs Amri Sabharwal and Another

V.K. Shali, J.—This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Order XLIII CPC against the order dated 8.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. 785/2011 dismissing the application of the appellant under Order VII Rule 10 & 11 CPC. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit for possession, recovery of rent, mesne profit, damages and permanent injunction which was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents against the appellant/defendant is overvalued as a consequence of which the suit which ought to have been filed in the court of the learned Civil Judge has been chosen to be filed in the court of the learned District Judge.

In the plaint, the plaintiffs/respondents have averred that they are entitled to recover arrears of rent for the period from June, 2010 to June, 2011 @ Rs. 8,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 1,16,000/- and for the period from July, 2011 to October, 2011 @ Rs. 8,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 32,000/-. So the total rent to be recovered is Rs. 1,48,000/-. It was alleged that the current market rent for similar premises in the Masjid Moth area is around Rs. 20,000/- per month and, therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs are also entitled to receive @ Rs. 20,000/- per month towards the rent from July, 2011 till the possession of the premises is handed over by the defendant/appellant. It was further averred in the plaint that a total rent of Rs. 1,48,000/- since June, 2010 to October, 2011 as mentioned above along with an interest @ Rs. 24 per cent per annum from its due date, are liable to be recovered from the defendant/appellant and that the plaintiffs/respondents are further entitled to recovery of Rs. 20,000/- per month towards the future rent calculated as per current market rate. It was further stated that the plaintiffs/respondents are also entitled to recover Rs. 50,000/- towards past and future damages, Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards mesne profits from the defendant/appellant.

The case of the appellant/defendant is that the plaintiffs/respondents have claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as mesne profits/damages for the period from July, 2010 to October, 2011 and if the plaintiffs/respondents are claiming arrears of rent for that period then they are not entitled to claim the mesne profits. If this mesne profits of Rs. 50,000/- is not added to the total valuation of the suit, as has been done by the respondents/plaintiffs in paragraph 15 of the plaint (paragraph 2.19 of the appeal) then the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents ought to have been filed in the court of Civil Judge and not in the court of District Judge. Accordingly, it is prayed that the learned Additional District Judge has erroneously rejected the application of the appellant/defendant in rejecting the plaint of the respondents/plaintiffs on the ground of jurisdiction.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have gone through the impugned order. So far as Order VII Rule 11 CPC is concerned, under clause (b), if the plaintiff undervalues his suit then the suit is liable to be rejected after the opportunity is given to the plaintiff to pay the deficient court fees. Admittedly, the case which was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is not a case where he has undervalued the suit. The grievance of the appellant is on account of the alleged overvaluation of the suit so as to bring it to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of District Judge. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled Smt. Nandita Bose Vs. Ratanlal Nahata, to contend that in case a party makes absurd or imaginary valuation of his plaint, the court will be well within its right to reject the plaint after giving an opportunity to the plaintiff concerned to rectify the valuation clause.

I have gone through the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no doubt about the fact that in the case which has been cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Apex Court has held that if a plaintiff grossly overvalues or undervalues the suit with the object of bringing it within the jurisdiction of a particular court then the plaint can be directed to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper court. But if the valuation is made by the plaintiff on the basis of a relief claimed by him which is neither absurd nor imaginary but requires judicial consideration and on that basis the plaint is presented before the court which has the jurisdiction, then such a plaint cannot be rejected.

A perusal of the aforesaid judgment would clearly show that the court has the power to reject the plaint where there is an imaginary or an absurd valuation done by a plaintiff. In the instant case, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the respondents/plaintiffs have done absurd valuation of their plaint. The respondents/plaintiffs have categorically stated in a tabular form that upto a particular date; they are entitled to the arrears of rent @ Rs. 8,000/- per month. They have also stated that after termination of their tenancy, they may be directed to be paid @ Rs. 8,000/- per month but as the market rent of the similar property situated in the area in question would be Rs. 20,000/- per month, therefore, they are claiming damages/mesne profits at that rate and they have accordingly assessed the differential of the two and calculated the same to be Rs. 50,000/- which has been added to the total pecuniary jurisdiction. I do not think that such a reasoning or pleading which has been given by the respondents/plaintiffs in the plaint can be said to be imaginary or absurd, by any stretch of imagination.

I, accordingly, feel that there was hardly any occasion for the learned trial court to have rejected the plaint. In my considered opinion, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application of the appellant for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. I must also say that the entire purpose of the appellant in undertaking this exercise of compelling the respondents/plaintiffs to file the suit in the court of Civil Judge rather than in the court of District Judge is only actuated by ulterior considerations and these ulterior considerations, which this court takes judicial notice of, is the fact that a case as on date in the court of Additional District Judge gets decided faster on account of lower pendency in comparison to the court of Civil Judge where it takes much more time. This is obviously on account of the fact that there is higher pendency in the court of Civil Judge. I, accordingly, feel that the learned District Judge has rightly rejected the application of the appellant. There is no merit in the appeal and is dismissed as such.