Full Text
Translation output
=1= HIGH COURT OF DELHI C.R.P. II5/2OII&CMN0S. 15892-84/2011
UNITED SCHOOLS ORGANISATION OF INDIA & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rohtash Singh & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates.
UNITED SCHOOLS ORGANISATION OF INDIA & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rohtash Singh & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates.
VERSUS
RAJ RANI JAIN & ORS Respondents Tlirough: Ms. Parul Verma, Advocate for R-4 & 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
26.08.2011 Thave heard the counsel of both the parties.
The plaintiffs (respondents herein) had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,47,276/- and for declaration of title in their favour in respect of some immovable properties, permanent and mandatory injunction and rendition of accounts against thepetitioners-defendants and plaint had been valued for these reliefs. An application for rejection of the plaint was filed by the defendants, petitioners herein, under Order VII Rule 1ICPC before thetrial Court stating that the same is liable to be rejected as the value of the suit properties was more than rupees one crore and the plaintiffs had not paid the required courtfees on the value of the properties.
The plaintiffs had contested this application.
The learned trial Court after hearing submissions of counsel for both the parties agreed with the submissions of plaintiffs-respondents and held that this application was devoid of any merits as it did not satisfy the requirements of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
After having gonethroughthe impugned order and having considered submissions of
26.08.2011 Thave heard the counsel of both the parties.
The plaintiffs (respondents herein) had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,47,276/- and for declaration of title in their favour in respect of some immovable properties, permanent and mandatory injunction and rendition of accounts against thepetitioners-defendants and plaint had been valued for these reliefs. An application for rejection of the plaint was filed by the defendants, petitioners herein, under Order VII Rule 1ICPC before thetrial Court stating that the same is liable to be rejected as the value of the suit properties was more than rupees one crore and the plaintiffs had not paid the required courtfees on the value of the properties.
The plaintiffs had contested this application.
The learned trial Court after hearing submissions of counsel for both the parties agreed with the submissions of plaintiffs-respondents and held that this application was devoid of any merits as it did not satisfy the requirements of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
After having gonethroughthe impugned order and having considered submissions of
C.R.P. 115/2011
2011:DHC:9194 both the counsel I do not see any reason to set aside this impugned order and the application under Order VII Rule 11 was rightly dismissed since the money decree sought by the plaintiffs was for a sum of Rs. 13,47,276/- at which ad valorem court fee was paid. Even after adding to this relief the value of other reliefs of declaration etc, the suit was well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
P.K. BHA! AUGUST 26,2011
2011:DHC:9194 both the counsel I do not see any reason to set aside this impugned order and the application under Order VII Rule 11 was rightly dismissed since the money decree sought by the plaintiffs was for a sum of Rs. 13,47,276/- at which ad valorem court fee was paid. Even after adding to this relief the value of other reliefs of declaration etc, the suit was well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
P.K. BHA! AUGUST 26,2011
C.R.P. 115/2011 page 2 of2
2011:DHC:9194
2011:DHC:9194
JUDGMENT