SUNIL Vs. HOTEL ARPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order passed by the court below rejecting I.A.No.7 filed by them under Order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure requesting the Court to return the plaint by holding that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. The defendants had also urged that the suit was not properly valued and the court fee paid was not proper and correct. The Trial Court has negatived this contention of defendants as well holding that the court fee paid by the plaintiff by valuing the suit under Section 41(1)(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Court Fees Act', for short) was correct.

(2.) The suit is filed by respondents 1 to 4 against the petitioners herein and also respondent No.5 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking a direction to the defendants to immediately hand over vacant possession of the suit property to plaintiffs alleging that defendants had illegally dispossessed the plaintiffs. Case of the plaintiffs has been that they were tenants in possession of the suit schedule premises and the defendants had illegally dispossessed them on 1st February 2014.

(3.) Defendants have filed written statement and have resisted the suit. They have contended inter alia that valuation made of the suit property and the relief sought under Section 41(1)(d) was not correct, as Section 28 of the Court Fee Act provided that in a suit for possession of immovable property filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on Rs.1,000/- whichever was higher.