Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: ..1..
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.471 OF 2020
(CNR NO.MHCC010011592020)
IN
S. C. SUIT NO.1281 OF 2014
Kanheyalal Dharamnarain Agrawal ).. Plaintiff
V/s.
Omprakash Dharamnarain Agrawal & others ).. Defendants
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Rajesh Jain plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. from Law Chamber of Siddharth Murarka for defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHAIKH AKBAR SHAIKH JAFAR
COURT ROOM NO.03
DATE : 27/01/2023.
ORDER
1 This notice of motion is taken out by the defendants under
Order 7 Rule 11 Clause (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, contenting
that the plaintiff has not valued the subject matter of the suit properly
and failed to pay required Court Fees. Therefore, prayed for rejection
of the suit.
2 It is his contention that the subject matter of the suit is
having value more than Rs.62,00,000/ as well as the plaintiff has
claimed compensation of Rs.70,000/ per month, which is the criteria to
-- 1 of 5 --
..2..
decide the value of the subject matter of the suit, which is to be
calculated 150 times of Rs.70,000/ per month. Thus, the value of
subject matter is calculated to Rs.01,05,00,000/. The subject matter is
having value of more than Rupees One Crore, therefore, this Court has
no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit for want of pecuniary
jurisdiction and thus, plaint deserves to be rejected.
3 As per Roznama dated 08/10/2021, after hearing the
parties, the Court has directed the concerned Ld. Registrar to make an
enquiry u/s.8 of the Maharashtra Court Fee Act and submit the
valuation report regarding the valuation of the subject matter for the
purpose of Court Fees. Accordingly, the concerned Ld. Additional
Registrar of this Court has submitted the report vide Exh.9. The
defendant has raised objection to the report filed by the Ld. Additional
Registrar by filing the reply, contending that the Concerned Registrar
has not given proper valuation of the suit and shown the less value of
the subject matter.
4 The plaintiff has replied and supported to the report of Ld.
Additional Registrar and prayed for dismissal of the notice of motion
and to turn down the objection of the defendant to the valuation report.
5 Heard the rival parties at length. The defendant is basically
relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a case of,
“Prem Ratan Vohra V/s. Lalitkumar Dayalji Kakhani, reported in
1998 Mh.L.J. 321”. In the cited case where the suit was filed for
recovery of possession from the tenant and objection was raised by the
-- 2 of 5 --
..3..
defendant therein on the ground that on proper valuation of the suit
premises, the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try and entertain
the suit, as it exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Therein, it is
claimed that the valuation assess was not proper and having considered
the entire provisions, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the
basis of calculating the market value of the suit property, it should be
based on the compensation charged and its market value should be
arrived by multiplying it by 150 times value of compensation charged.
It is the only reason for which the defendants are claiming that as the
plaintiff has claimed Rs.70,000/ per month compensation from filing of
the suit, thus, the valuation of the subject matter would arrive after
calculating Rs.70,000/ for 150 times.
6 I have carefully perused the citation as well as the plaint,
documents on record and the valuation report filed by the Ld.
Additional Registrar of this Court. No doubt, the plaintiff is claiming
compensation of Rs.70,000/ per month, but, it is for the future period
and what is held in the cited case is that the market value of the
property should be calculated on the compensation charged. In the
instant case, no compensation is charged but, it is claimed and yet to be
granted by the Court. Therefore, the principle applied in the cited case
is not applicable to the instant case.
7 It is to be noted that this Court has already framed the
Issues vide Exh.5 on 24/07/2018, in which Issue No.4 is regarding the
valuation of the subject matter of the suit. Thus, the rival parties are
having an opportunity to establish their contentions. The defendant has
-- 3 of 5 --
..4..
filed this notice of motion in the year, 2020 i.e. more than one & half
year after framing the Issues. It is further contended that the valuation
of the subject matter has assessed by the Ld. Additional Registrar to
Rs.2,00,000/ is not proper. However, as the Issue is already framed in
the regard, the defendant is at liberty to adduce the evidence to
establish the proper market value of the subject matter. Consequently,
at this stage, the contention of defendant has no force. For the above
discussed reasons, I am of the view that the present notice of motion
deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following
order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.471/2020 in Suit No.1281/2014, is
hereby dismissed.
2. Notice of Motion is disposed off accordingly.
(Order dictated & pronounced in open Court)
(Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Jafar)
Judge, City Civil Court,
Dated : 27/01/2023 C.R. No.03, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 27/01/2023
Typed on : 27/01/2023
Signed on :
-- 4 of 5 --
..5..
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order”.
30/01/2023
at about 06.00 p.m.
(Ms. Vidya Abhijit Mande)
Stenographer (GradeI.)
Court Room No.03, Gr. Mumbai
Name of the Hon'ble Judge : Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Jafar,
Judge, City Civil Court &
Addl. Sessions Judge
Court Room No.03, Gr. Mumbai
Date of pronouncement of Order : 27/01/2023
Order signed by Hon'ble Judge on : 27/01/2023
Order uploaded on : 30/01/2023
at about 06.00 p.m.
-- 5 of 5 --