VIPUL KHOSLA Vs. ANIL KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of IA No. 4683/2007 which seeks rejection of the plaint on several grounds.

(2.) THE plaintiffs, as minors, had sued the defendants and claimed declaration with other consequential reliefs through their mother and next friend; the suit was filed on 11. 11. 2002 in this Court. The change in pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts in Delhi, led to the suit, CS (OS) 1846/2002 (Vipul Khosla vs. Anil Khosla and Ors.) being transferred to the Court of the District Judge by order of this Court dated 18. 3. 2004 During the course of proceedings, after the written statements were filed, the defendants raised a series of objections including valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court fee. They also moved an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It would be necessary to notice at this stage that the grounds for rejection of plaint are the same as are being articulated in IA No. 4683/2007. That application was rejected on 6. 12. 2005 by the trial Court. That order was challenged in revisional proceedings under Section 115, CPC being CRP No. 23-25/2006. Notice was issued in the revision petition which remained pending on the trial of the court.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, on 2. 6. 2006 the Addl. District Judge (trial Court)noticed that the suit was improperly valued and directed the plaintiffs to value it at Rs. 1. 5 crores for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. That order was challenged by one of the plaintiffs Vipul Khosla who had attained majority in the course of the proceedings and was permitted to contest the case. He accordingly moved CM (M) No. 1223/2006, assailing the order directing fresh valuation, dated 2. 6. 2006. This Court disposed of CM (M) 1223/2006 by the order dated 11. 8. 2006. Even while affirming the trial court's order directing the plaintiffs to increase valuation to Rs. 1. 5 crores the Court granted 30 days time to make up the deficiency in Court fees. The Court, in CM (M) 1223/2006 clarified to some extent its previous order, on 30. 9. 2006 when instead of the 30 day time limit, the trial Court was granted the liberty to consider the issue of time limit for payment of court fee. The Petitioner was permitted to satisfy the trial Court about the contention of delay in filing the Court fee.