BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA Vs. PRATAP NARAIN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal arises out of a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction as also recovery of damages for use and occupation of the suit property, as filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendantsrespondents(Hereinafter, the parties have also been referred to as 'the plaintiff' or 'the defendant No. 1' or 'the defendant No. 2', as per their status in the suit.) wherein, an application filed by the contesting defendant (respondent No.1 herein) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908('CPC', for short) during the course of plaintiff 's evidence, for rejection of the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court, was considered and rejected by the Trial Court on 11/7/2018 but, the High Court has taken a different view of the matter in its impugned order dtd. 18/3/2019 with reference to the statement made by the plaintiff in his cross-examination as regards the value of the suit property; and has ordered return of the plaint for filing the same in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction.

(3.) In the given set of circumstances, we do not propose to dilate on all the factual aspects of the case as the matter is said to be pending in appeal and all the relevant aspects are required to be left open for examination by the First Appellate Court. The discussion herein, therefore, is confined only to the correctness and validity of the order passed by the High Court in regard to the suit valuation and not beyond. Thus, only a brief reference to the factual aspects, to the extent relevant for the present purpose, would suffice.