HANSRAJ BHUTTIANI & ANR Vs. HARMESH LAL BHUTTIANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 23.5.2013 by which the trial court has directed that the petitioner/plaintiffs must value the suit for possession in terms of Section 7(V) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

(2.) To the impugned order, there cannot be any quibble, because, once the suit is for possession then the court fees will have to be paid under Section 7(V) of the Court Fees Act, but counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs makes a statement before this Court that since as per the averments in the plaint, especially in para 4 which states that the respondent/defendant was only a licensee, the present suit should be treated instead of a suit for possession as a suit for mandatory injunction in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal Jain Vs. Avtar Singh, 1985 2 SCC 332.

(3.) Though the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant argues that respondent/defendant is not a licensee, but is the owner of the suit premises, however, that is an issue of defence on merits and that cannot be looked into when we have to look into the aspect of the valuation of the suit/plaint when only the averments made in the plaint have to be looked into.