MANU/DE/3320/2014
Equivalent Citation: 214(2014)DLT489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.M.(M) No. 1230 of 2013
Decided On: 21.08.2014
Appellants: Ishwar Chand Gupta
Vs.
Respondent: Yudhister Gupta
Hon'ble
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Raj Kumar Mittal, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: None
JUDGMENT
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
C.M.(M) No. 1230/2013 and C.M. No.
18054/2013 (stay)
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India the
petitioner/plaintiff challenges the
impugned order of the trial Court dated
7.10.2013 as per which the trial Court
before even issuing summons in the suit
held that the suit was not properly valued
for the purpose of Court fee and
jurisdiction and accordingly directed the
petitioner/plaintiff to value the suit for
injunction at market value of the suit
property and pay Court fee. The subject
suit is for recovery of damages, perpetual
and mandatory injunction. The reliefs
which are claimed in the suit are as under:
"It is therefore prayed that the following
relief/s to the Plaintiff may kindly be
granted against the Defendants--
(a) That a decree for recovery of a sum of
Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) be
passed against the defendants jointly,
severally co-extensively, individually,
separately towards the cost of repairs,
damages so caused to the property of the
plaintiff and towards damages for causing
mental agony, tensions, torture,
harassment to the Plaintiff along with
interest @ 24% per annum from the date
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
May 24, 2021
Judges/Coram:
of filing of the present suit till its
realization.
(b) That a decree for perpetual injunction
be passed restraining the defendants,
their men, agents, nominees, from
carrying out any unauthorized
construction in the property bearing No.
11767, Gali No. 4, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005 or on the Municipal
Land and the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be
further restrained to put the property into
any use which is in contravention of
building bye-laws and DMC Act, 1957.
(c) That a decree for mandatory injunction
be passed directing the
demolition/removal of the unauthorized
construction so carried by the Defendant
No. 1 and 2 beyond the site plan/building
plan so sanctioned by the Defendant No.
3 in their favour.
(d) A decree for mandatory injunction be
passed directing the Defendant Nos. 3 to
5 to lodging criminal complaint/criminal
prosecution against the Defendant Nos. 1
and 2 and their own officials for removal
of the Government seal put by the
Defendant Nos. 3/4 on the property and
the defendant Nos. 3 to 4 be directed to
take disciplinary action against the
defendant No. 5 or any other officer so
found guilty involved in working against
his duty to help the defendant Nos. 1 & 2.
Page |1
(e) Cost of the suit be also awarded in
favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant.
(f) Any other/direction Order which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the
case may also be passed in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
It is prayed accordingly."
2. The relevant para with respect to Court
fee and pecuniary jurisdiction is para 15
of the plaint, and which reads as under:
"(15) That the value of the suit for the
purpose of the Court Fees and jurisdiction
has been fixed at Rs. 5,00,000/- for the
relief of recovery, Rs. 130/- for the relief
of perpetual injunction and Rs. 130/- for
the relief of mandatory injunction, on
which requisite Court Fees has been
affixed/paid."
fee is not required to be paid on the
market value of the property.
5. In view of the above, the impugned
order is illegal and is accordingly set
aside. It is held that at the stage of issuing
of the summons in the suit it cannot be
held that the suit is not properly valued
for the purpose of Court fee and
jurisdiction, however, if there is such an
issue raised by the defendant, in this
regard, the same will be finally dealt with
by the concerned Court in accordance
with law. Petition is accordingly allowed
and disposed of by setting aside the
impugned order dated 7.10.2013.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt.
Ltd.

3. Plaintiff has paid the necessary ad

valorem Court fee with respect to
recovery of damages of Rs. 5 lacs. So far
as the reliefs of injunctions are concerned,
the same have been valued at Rs. 130/-
and for which Court fee of Rs. 13/- has
been paid for each relief of injunction. A
reading of the suit plaint shows that the
cause of action and reliefs with respect to
recovery of damages and injunction are
independent reliefs. Once with respect to
each of the independent reliefs Court fee
is paid, it is not understood as to how the
impugned order can hold that the plaintiff
has not properly valued the suit and has
not paid appropriate Court fee. The reliefs
which are claimed of injunction are with
respect to restraining the defendant from
carrying on unauthorized construction,
not using the property in violation of the
municipal laws, for demolition of the
unauthorized construction and for
direction to lodge a criminal complaint
against the defendants.

4. As per the Court Fees Act, 1870 as

applicable in Delhi, it is the prerogative of
the plaintiff in a suit for injunction to value
the relief at the amount which he deems
fit with the minimum value at Rs. 130/-.
In this case, with respect to each relief of
injunction the suit is valued at Rs. 130/-
and for each relief of injunction the
appropriate Court fee of Rs. 13/- has been
paid. Since possession is not prayed Court

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

May 24, 2021 Page |2