VED PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. DAPINDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application filed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff seeks directions for granting him the benefit of computing the period of limitation after excluding the time spent by the plaintiff in the civil suit filed before the District Court.

(2.) Arguing the present application, Mr. P.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff had earlier filed this suit before the District Court with all due diligence based on the valuation of the property as was assessed by the plaintiff. Counsel also submitted that the plaintiff had applied through RTI to find out the valuation of the said property and after receiving information under RTI the plaintiff moved the concerned Court for the return of the plaint. Counsel further submitted that on 7.4.2011 the plaintiff had moved an application to seek return of the plaint and vide order dated 28.5.2011, the Court of Shri Anurag Sain, Additional District Judge of Delhi, who was seized with the matter, had given a direction for the return of the plaint to the plaintiff and the said plaint was returned to the plaintiff on 31.5.2011 wherafter the plaintiff filed the present suit on 2.7.2011. Counsel thus stated that the plaintiff was bonafidely prosecuting his case with all due diligence before the District Court and, therefore, time spent before the District Court in the said suit may be excluded. In support of his arguments, counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the following judgments:

(3.) Opposing the present application, Mr. Amit S. Chadha, learned Senior counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff has filed the present suit on 2.7.2011 wherein the plaintiff has valued the subject property of the suit at Rs. 23,32,200/-. Counsel further stated that in the written statement filed by the defendants, to the suit filed by the plaintiff before the District Court, in the preliminary objections as well as in reply to the relevant para for valuation, objection was raised by the defendant challenging the valuation of the suit wrongly fixed by the plaintiff at Rs.4 lacs while the correct value of the subject property of the suit was much more than Rs. 4 lacs and in fact, as per the circle rates as prevalent on the date of the filing of the suit, it went beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts. Counsel further submitted that the defendants had filed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC before the District Court which application was contested by the plaintiff and it is only when the learned trial court passed the order dated 23.3.2011 for return of plaint due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, and thereafter only, the plaintiff moved an application on 7.4.2011 to seek return of the plaint and on the said application of the plaintiff, the court vide order dated 28.05.2011 directed return of the plaint. Counsel further submitted that counsel for the plaintiff in the present application nowhere has disclosed any reasons showing his bona fide and due diligence in prosecuting the said suit before the trial court and in fact, the plaintiff has suppressed the facts by not disclosing to the court that it is the defendant who has raised objection in the written statement regarding under valuation of the said suit and also by virtue of application moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC. Counsel thus submitted that it is not a fit case where this court would exercise jurisdiction qua the plaintiff by allowing the present application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.