Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 27 CS 324/24
ANIL KUMAR TOKAS Vs. UMESH RANI
03.12.2025
Present: Ld counsel for plaintiff
Sh. Humayun Khan, Ld counsel for defendant
An application under order VI Rule 17 CPC was
filed by plaintiff, whereby plaintiff seeks to add Para 2A, 15A
and 21A in the original plaint.
By way of Para 2A, plaintiff seeks to brought on
record that he has purchased a property from Smt. Draupadi Devi
by registered Sale Deed. Vide Para 15A, Plaintiff seeks to
brought on regarding the conduct as well as cases against the
defendant herein. Further, by virtue of Para 21A, plaintiff seeks
to value the suit at Rs.35,00,000/-.
The present application is opposed by Ld counsel for
defendant primarily on the grounds that by way of present
application plaintiff is also seeking to brought on record two
documents which is not permissible as per law. It is argued that
the present application was filed by the plaintiff only after the
defendant herein had moved an application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC questioning the suit valuation.
Heard. Perused. Considered.
The present suit is at initial stage and pleading are
yet to be completed in the present matter. Furthermore, the
present amendment is necessary for just adjudication of the case,
since by way of present amendment, plaintiff seeks to
produce/brought on his right, title and interest in the property in
question as well as to make appropriate suit valuation.
-- 1 of 2 --
In view of the same, the present application stands
allowed subject to cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid to defendant.
Amended plaint taken on record.
Cost paid.
Further, defendant herein has filed an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is argued that even though the
suit has been valued by the plaintiff herein at Rs.35,00,000/-,
however he has not paid the appropriate court fees upon the
same, since the plaintiff under the garb of ejection is seeking
possession of the said property and thereby, he is liable to pay
ad-valorem court fees upon the same.
The said application is opposed by Ld counsel for
plaintiff, on the ground that the plaintiff is not owner of property
in question and is further in possession of the same and thereby
he is not require to pay ad-valorem court fees.
Arguments heard.
Now to come up for orders on 10.02.2026.
It is further made clear that the documents which
plaintiff seeks to place on record along with the present
application be taken on record, since they are in support of the
amended pleadings, so filed. Further, defendant shall be at liberty
to file amended written statement, if required and supply advance
copy of the same to plaintiff.
(Anubhav Jain)
District Judge -05, NDD,
PHC/ND/03.12.2025
-- 2 of 2 --