PRADIPTA MAZUMDAR Vs. AMRI SABHARWAL & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant under Order XLIII CPC against the order dated 8.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. 785/2011 dismissing the application of the appellant under Order VII Rule 10 & 11 CPC. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit for possession, recovery of rent, mesne profit, damages and permanent injunction which was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents against the appellant/defendant is overvalued as a consequence of which the suit which ought to have been filed in the court of the learned Civil Judge has been chosen to be filed in the court of the learned District Judge.

(3.) THE case of the appellant/defendant is that the plaintiffs/respondents have claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - as mesne profits/damages for the period from July, 2010 to October, 2011 and if the plaintiffs/respondents are claiming arrears of rent for that period then they are not entitled to claim the mesne profits. If this mesne profits of Rs. 50,000/ - is not added to the total valuation of the suit, as has been done by the respondents/plaintiffs in paragraph 15 of the plaint (paragraph 2.19 of the appeal) then the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents ought to have been filed in the court of Civil Judge and not in the court of District Judge. Accordingly, it is prayed that the learned Additional District Judge has erroneously rejected the application of the appellant/defendant in rejecting the plaint of the respondents/plaintiffs on the ground of jurisdiction.