R. P. BAJAJ Vs. SHIELA KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant who is the original Plaintiff has challenged the judgment dtd. 5/12/2015 ('Impugned Judgment') passed by the learned Additional District Judge-04, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi ('ADJ'), whereby the learned ADJ remanded the Suit of the Appellant to the learned Civil Judge-02, (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi ('Trial Court') along with direction to afford an opportunity to the Appellant to correct valuation of the Suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and to pay requisite fees at the market value of the property bearing No. 13, Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi ('suit property'). The learned ADJ held that the Appellant has sought declaration of ownership with regard to the suit property along with the consequential relief of permanent injunction and as such was required to pay ad valorem court fees, as per Sec. 7 (iv)(c) or Sec. 7 (v)(e) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 ('Court Fees Act') after valuing the suit property at the market value.

(2.) The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 5/12/2015 passed by the learned ADJ, inter alia, on the grounds that (i) the Impugned Judgment has not taken into consideration the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 ('Suits Valuation Act') and (ii) the learned ADJ has failed to consider that in another suit bearing Suit No. 18 / 2012 titled as "Vinod Gupta vs R. P. Bajaj' filed by Respondent No. 2, who was the original Defendant No. 2 for possession of the suit property and recovery of mesne profits / damages for the use and occupation, Respondent No. 2 has valued the said suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at ? 4200/-, being the annual rent / licence fee paid by the Appellant.

(3.) On this ground, the Appellant has submitted that there cannot be two different yardsticks for the same suit property.