JAI RAJ Vs. JAI GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against impugned order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the learned ADJ, Delhi whereby application of the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are as under:- The respondent herein i.e. plaintiff before the learned trial court has filed a suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of property bearing No. 107, Sunehri Bagh, Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., Plot No. 15, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-110085 against the appellant herein i.e. defendant before the learned trial court. The respondent/plaintiff had valued the said suit for the relief of possession as Rs. 27000/- P.M. x 12. In the said suit, appellant/defendant had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was not properly valued as per Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1987 for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees has not been paid as per Section 7 of the Court Fee Act, 1870 by the respondent for the relief of decree of possession of suit property. In the said application, appellant/defendant had alleged that the market value of the said property is Rs. 1 crore or more as per market value and as per circle rate of the locality as such the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the case. The respondent/plaintiff did not file reply to the said application and the matter was orally argued on 19.07.2011 and thereafter it was adjourned for pronouncement of order to 26.07.2011. Thereafter, it was adjourned to 2-3 dates for some clarification and ultimately on 06.08.2011 the counsel for respondent/plaintiff sought leave of the court for moving an appropriate application for amendment of the suit and thereafter the respondent/plaintiff had moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint along with additional court fee of Rs. 15,300/-. Thereupon the court wherein the said suit was pending was abolished and the case was transferred before another learned ADJ, Delhi. The case was listed there on 02.01.2012 and again it was adjourned to 17.01.2012. On 17.01.2012, the learned ADJ allowed the application of respondent/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and also disposed of the application of the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by composite order dated 17.01.2012, the relevant portion of which is as under:-

(3.) I have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.