Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ NO.104/24
DIMPLE AGGARWAL Vs. ANOOP SINGH
19.10.2024
ORDER
1. By this order I will dispose off the application U/o VII rule
11 CPC filed by the defendant.
2. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the application
are that the plaintiff claims that he bought properties, detailed in
para 2 of the plaint, situated in revenue estate, village Bawana,
Delhi-39 via a duly registered sale deed for a valuable
consideration of Rs. 66,25000/- and subsequent to the purchase,
are in physical possession of the same. It is the case of the
plaintiffs that the defendants claim themselves to be the grandson
of one Late Mr. Sher Singh who was allegedly the previos owner
of the suit property bearing khasra no 157 and 158, Khasra no.
157 and 158, Khanjawala Road, Bawana, Delhi-39. In October,
2023 the defendants approached the plaintiff and asked him to
vacate the suit property claiming themselves to be the owner of
the same on the basis of an alleged will and have been
threatening him with forcible dispossession. Hence, the present
suit.
3. The present application has been filed on the ground that
the plaintiff has concealed material facts that the defendant is in
actual possession of the suit property. It hs also been alleged that
CS SCJ NO.104/24 DIMPLE AGGARWAL Vs. ANOOP SINGH 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
this Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the
present suit.
4. Submissions heard. Record perused.
5. It is settled principle of law that while adjudicating an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is only the plaint
and the accompanying documents which have to be referred to
and the defence of the defendant cannot be considered while
deciding such applications.
(Kamala and others v. K. T. Eshwara
Sa and others., (2008) 12 SCC 661) It is also settled law that
while deciding such applications, the plaint has to be read as a
whole and not in part.
(Biswanath Banik & Anr. Versus Smt.
Sulanga Bose & Ors., CA NO. 1848/2022; MARCH 14, 2022)
6. As regards, the first objection of the defendant i.e. the
plaintiff has concealed the material facts regarding possession
over the suit property, the same is the matter of trial and a plaint
cannot be rejected on this ground.
7. The second contention of the defendant is that the suit has
not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and
pecuniary jurisdiction. The present suit is one for permanent and
mandatory injunction. It is settled law that suits for injunction
can be valued by the plaintiff at his discretion, as stated in
Section 7 (IV) Court Fee Act 1870. However, perusal of para -9
of the amended plaint shows that the plaintiff has not valued the
suit for the reliefs sought. In fact, valuation clause has been left
blank. Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to value the suit for the
CS SCJ NO.104/24 DIMPLE AGGARWAL Vs. ANOOP SINGH 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and court fee for each relief
sought within four weeks from today.
8 Application stands disposed off in terms of aforesaid
directions.
(PRITU RAJ)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/19.10.2024
CS SCJ NO.104/24 DIMPLE AGGARWAL Vs. ANOOP SINGH 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --