Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. HARVINDER SINGH JOHAL :
DISTRICT JUDGE-02 & WAQF TRIBUNAL :
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
CS No. 318/2025
CNR No. DLND01-005039-2025
IN THE MATTER OF :
Pankaj Agrawal
…. Plaintiff
VERSUS
Manoj Kumar ….. Defendant
ORDER
1. This order of mine shall dispose off an application filed by the
defendant, U/O 7 Rule 10 CPC for return of the plaint on the ground of
pecuniary jurisdiction.
2. Brief facts of the present case sans unnecessary details is that, plaintiff is
an absolute and registered owner of a flat bearing no163 9DDA Flats, in
Pocket-6, Sector-D, Block- Kaveri, measuring 63 sq. mtrs on ground
floor situated at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as suit
property), which was lease out to the defendant for the residential
purposes @ Rs.25,000/- per month for the tenure of 11 months from
21.03.2025 to 20.02.2026. Plaintiff further pleads that through the lease
deed was for eleven months. However, the defendant has initially
requested to lease out the suit property only for a period of two to three
CS No. 318/2025 1 / 6
-- 1 of 6 --
months’ time period. Therefore, no security deposit was paid by the
defendant and no lock-in-period was imposed in the terms of the lease
agreement. It is the case of the plaintiff that as per clause-16 of the said
lease agreement, both the parties reserved the rights to determine and
terminate the tenancy by serving one month’s notice. In compliance of
the said term, plaintiff invoked the legal notice dated 27.05.2025 by
registered post calling upon the defendant to vacate this property within
30 days. The said notice was received on 29.05.2025. However,
defendant has not vacated the property and aggrieved by the conduct, the
present suit is filed.
3. During the pendency of the said suit, an application U/O 7 rule 10 CPC
filed by the defendant for the return of plaint on the ground of pecuniary
jurisdiction of this court.
4. It is the case of the defendant that the pleaded rent of the suit property
is Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, the valuation of the suit is Rs.3
Lakhs as per The Court Fees Act, 1870. Section 8 of the said of the Act
provides for all such cases, court fees valuation and pecuniary
jurisdiction of the suit will be the same. On this ground, defendant pleads
that the suit filed in the court having no pecuniary jurisdiction and pleads
for return of the plaint.
CS No. 318/2025 2 / 6
-- 2 of 6 --
5. Reply to the said application filed by the plaintiff, wherein it is
categorically admitted by the plaintiff, that the valuation of the present
suit is erroneous mentioned as Rs.1 Crore as per paragraph no.9 of the
plaint. Plaintiff further pleads that it is admitted position by the defendant
that rent of Rs.25,000/- is paid per month, thereby the valuation of the
suit is Rs. 3 Lakh. He further pleads that he is also seeking mesne profits
qua the suit property when since legal notice was received by the
defendant on 29.05.2025, when he was under the obligation to vacate the
suit property by 28.06.2025.
6. However, the defendant refused to vacate the property and the present
suit is filed on 03.07.2025, therefore, the plaintiff is seeking mesne profits
from 29.06.2025 to 03.07.2025 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per day as stated
in Clause-17 of the lease agreement apart from due rent @ Rs.1,834/- per
day. Therefore, the plaintiff sets up the case that he is also entitled to the
mesne profits amounting to Rs. 14,170/-. Therefore, for the valuation of
the present suit, the cumulative effect of both the reliefs is to be seen,
which amount to Rs.3,14,170/-. Counsel for the plaintiff has also relied
upon the judgment of Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court of
Delhi reported as
Om wati Vs. Panchi Devi, 2011 SCC Online Del 5381.
The relevant paragraphs reproduced as under:-
" 16. Learned counsel for the appellant
CS No. 318/2025 3 / 6
-- 3 of 6 --
urges only one point in the appeal. The
point which he urges is that this Court
had no pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain the suit for the reason, where
tenancy is determined suit valuation
must take its colour for purpose of
jurisdiction with reference to last
agreed rent paid”.
“17. We concur with the legal argument
advanced, but highlight that the same
would relate to the valuation of the suit
for purposes of jurisdiction relatable to
the plea of possession. Where there is
an additional plea for past damages, the
same have to be quantified and in that
context the jurisdictional value would
be the sum total of both”.
7. As well as Rule 7 in Chapter 3 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court Rules
reproduced as under:
“7 Plaint should show value for
purposes of Court fees and
jurisdiction- In order to guard
against mistakes as to the value of
the suit for purposes of jurisdiction
and of Court-fees, respectively,
every plaint ought upon its face to
show the value for purposes of
jurisdiction as well the value for the
purposes of computing Court-fees.
CS No. 318/2025 4 / 6
-- 4 of 6 --
The former information is requisite
in order that the Court may
determine whether the plaint should
be returned U/O VII, Rule 10, of the
Code of Civil Procedure. When a
plaint omits to disclose the value of
the suit for the purposes of
jurisdiction, the person presenting it
should be questioned, and answer
recorded on the plaint, unless he
consents to amend it then and
there”.
8. Relying upon the above pleadings, the plaintiff prays that the application
U/O 7 Rule 10 CPC be dismissed.
9. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
10. This court by relying upon the Judgment
Om wati Vs. Panchi Devi’s case
(supra), alongwith Section 7 (cc) of the Court Fees Act & Section 8 of
the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 is of the opinion that since two reliefs have
been claimed by the plaintiff that is for possession and for mesne profits,
therefore, there is merits in the arguments of the plaintiff that for the
purpose of jurisdiction cumulative of both the reliefs is to be considered
for adjudicating the jurisdiction of this court. It is admitted position by
both the parties that rent of the suit property is Rs.25,000/-, therefore, the
CS No. 318/2025 5 / 6
-- 5 of 6 --
valuation of the suit in compliance of Section 7 (cc) of the Court Fees
Act, 1870 is Rs.3 Lakhs. Further, it is prayed by the plaintiff that mesne
profit of Rs.14,170/- be also awarded. Therefore, the suit is valued at
Rs.3,14,170/- which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of this court by
relying upon Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887. Therefore, the
present suit is valued at Rs.3,14,170/-, which is exclusively within the
jurisdiction of this court. There is no merit in the application of the
defendant, same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Keeping in mind the aforementioned discussion, the application filed by
the defendant U/O 7 Rule 10 CPC is hereby dismissed.
12. However, plaintiff is directed to amend the plaint qua pecuniary
jurisdiction clause within two weeks by filing a relevant application for
correction of record from today with advance copy to the opposite side.
Announced in the open court on
24.09.2025. (Harvinder Singh Johal)
DJ-02 & Waqf Tribunal
NDD/PHC/ND/24.09.2025.
CS No. 318/2025 6 / 6
-- 6 of 6 --