Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    display_pdf - 2024-02-22T175757.431

    Uploaded by

    themillionairefoundation2b

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    display_pdf - 2024-02-22T175757.431

    Uploaded by

    themillionairefoundation2b
    4 views3 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    4 views3 pages

    display_pdf - 2024-02-22T175757.431

    Uploaded by

    themillionairefoundation2b

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Civ Suit 158/2014 8128/16

    SUDARSHAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. D. K. DEVEDI

    22.02.2024

    Present: None.

    Put up for orders at 4:00 PM.

    (Shubhi Gupta)
    Civil Judge/East/KKD Courts
    22.02.2024

    At 4:00 PM

    Present: None.

    1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application u/o


    7 Rule 11 CPC filed on behalf of the defendant.
    2. The defendant by way of the present application has
    stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff under valued and is liable
    to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) CPC.
    3. It is stated that the plaintiff has valued the suit for
    the purpose of jurisdiction for Rs. 60,000/- whereas the market
    value of the property is more than Rs. 25,00,000/-. The court fees
    paid by the plaintiff is Rs. 3000/-. It is averred that the plaintiff
    has not paid appropriate court fees.
    4. It is further stated that the plaint is not verified as per
    Order 6 Rule 15 CPC and the plaintiff has also not filed site plan
    of the suit property. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
    5. Plaintiff has not filed formal reply to the aforesaid
    application. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has straightaway argued
    by stating that the grounds raised by the defendant for the
    rejection of plaint are not covered under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It
    is further stated that inadvertently the verification clause has been
    missed in the amended plaint which will be added by him in the
    amended plaint if leave is granted by this court to do the same.
    He further states that sufficient court fees has been paid by the
    plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit has been under
    valued by the plaintiff.
    6. Submissions heard. Record perused.
    7. It is held in catena of judgments that plaint can be
    rejected only on the grounds mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
    Furthermore, for deciding the application for rejection of plaint
    only the averments in the plaint can be seen by the court. No
    defence of the defendant can be looked by the court at this stage.
    8. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for seeking
    possession, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction and
    for recovery of mesne profits in the capacity of landlord. It is
    averred that the defendant is inducted as the tenant in the suit
    property @ rent of Rs. 5000/- per month by the plaintiff.
    9. The defendant has claimed that the plaintiff has
    under valued the suit for which proper court fees has not been
    paid.
    10. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to advert
    to Section 7 (xi) (cc) of Court Fees Act, 1870 which provides the
    amount of fee payable in the suits between landlord and tenant
    for recovery of immovable property as in the present case is
    according to the amount of the rent of the immovable property to
    which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of
    presenting the same.
    11. Here, the plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose
    of jurisdiction @ Rs. 60,000/- which is correct according to the
    aforementioned provision of law as the plaintiff has averred that
    the rent of the suit property is Rs. 5000/-.
    12. The plaintiff has also paid appropriate court fees @
    Rs. 3000/-, therefore, this court cannot find any merits in the
    averments of the defendant that the suit of the plaintiff is under
    valued as the plaintiff has correctly valued his suit and has paid
    sufficient court fees.
    13. Furthermore, not filing of site plan is not a ground
    for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
    14. Perusal of the amended plaint shows that there is no
    verification clause. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended plaint
    to incorporate the verification clause in his plaint within 15 days
    from today with advance copy of the same to the Ld. Counsel for
    the defendant.
    15. In view of the above, the application filed on behalf
    of the defendant is dismissed. Accordingly, the application is
    disposed of.
    16. Now to come up for further proceedings on
    05.04.2024.

    (Shubhi Gupta)
    Civil Judge/East/KKD Courts
    22.02.2024

    You might also like