(1.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit against four defendants namely (i) Delite Techno Build Pvt. Ltd., (ii) Sushil Kumar Gupta, (iii) Mahender Kumar and (iv) The Govt. of NCT of Delhi, for
(2.) The plaintiff, in the plaint has pleaded (i) that the cheques for total Rs.15,30,00,000/- recorded in the Sale Deed to have been handed over by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff towards sale consideration were in fact not handed over by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff; (ii) that the plaintiff repeatedly reminded the defendant No.1 to pay the sale consideration but the defendant No.1 failed to do so; (iii) that the plaintiff moved an application on 12th May, 2010 before the Tehsildar with request that no mutation be affected in the name of defendant No.1; (iv) that in a joint meeting between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, it was agreed that some amount of the sale consideration would be adjusted in the payment made by Robot Properties Pvt. Ltd. to the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 assured payment of remaining sale consideration, representing that he will take possession and file application for mutation only after the consideration had been paid; (v) however, the defendant No.1, without paying the sale consideration, on 15th July, 2013 applied for mutation of the property and mutation was effected in favour of the defendant No.1 on 12th July, 2017; (vi) that the plaintiff filed objections to the mutation and proceedings in which regard were pending but the defendant No.3 Mahender Kumar, Advocate engaged by the plaintiff concealed from the plaintiff the factum of mutation having been affected; (vii) that the plaintiff is still in physical and cultivatory possession of the land; and, (viii) that the plaintiff has also lodged complaint dated 8th April, 2018 against the defendant No.1 and its Director defendant No.2 with the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police and has also filed a complaint against the defendant No.3 Mahender Kumar, Advocate.
(3.) The suit instituted on 1st November, 2018 and re-filed on 31st August, 6 th September and 11th September, 2019 came up first before this Court on 20th September, 2019, subject to office objection as to valuation and court fees. However, on it being enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, as to how the suit valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction in paragraph 37 of the plaint as under: