CALCUTTA SALES CORPORATION Vs. SAMPATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dtd. 11/11/2021 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide which an application moved by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order is patently illegal and has been passed in total disregard to the settled law.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to appreciate that the relevant documents placed on record by the petitioner clearly revealed that the petitioners were lawful tenants under the respondent and hence, the relationship inter-se between them was one of the landlord and tenant. Therefore, it was urged that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred and it was hit by Sec. 41(h) of Specific Relief Act, as the Rent Controller, Jalandhar alone would have had the jurisdiction to entertain any dispute arising out of tenancy. It was still further submitted that the respondent/plaintiff had also prayed for illegal occupation charges, damages @ ' 15,000/- per month with effect from July 2002 till date along with interest @ 18% p.a. Hence, in the light of the aforementioned prayer, the respondent/plaintiff was liable to pay ad-valorem Court fee as per the provisions of the Court Fee Act, 1870.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, submitted that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC had been filed with an oblique motive to delay the proceedings of trial. He argued that as per the averments made in the plaint, the inter-ser relationship between the parties at best was one of licensor and licensee. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit in question was not barred. While controverting the submissions made by the counsel opposite qua the correct ad-valorem fee not having been affixed, it was submitted that the suit had been correctly valued in accordance with law and the respondent/plaintiff was not required to affix the ad-valorem court fee.