Skip to content


Walaiti Ram Seth Vs. Krishan Kapoor and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R. No. 510 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1976Delhi50
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 7, Rule 1; Constitution of India - Article 227
AppellantWalaiti Ram Seth
RespondentKrishan Kapoor and ors.
Appellant Advocate G.S. Whra, Adv
Respondent Advocate Y.K. Sabharwal, Adv.
Cases ReferredSmt. Sheila Devi v. Kishan Lal
Excerpt:
.....the order of the trial court - the trial court through its order had directed the plaintiff to value the suit at a specified amount, as the plaintiff had failed to give valuation of the suit - it was ruled that the said order was without any jurisdiction and it was for the plaintiff to state his own valuation in the suit for account - further, it was ruled that the failure to file a revision, in such cases, would not bar the jurisdiction of the high court - section 13: [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph,jj] custody of child - welfare of child vis--vis comity of courts - the minor girl child of 3 1/2 years was brought to india by her mother. the minor girl was a citizen of u.k. being born in u.k. her parents had set up their matrimonial home in u.k. and had acquired status of permanent..........he has in the plaint that on, taking of accounts nearly rs.2 lacs might be due to him. the suit was valued, for the purpose of count-fee at rs.200. according to order 7, rule i (i), c.p.c. the plaintiff had to make a statement of the value of the subject matter of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and of court-fee, so far as the case admits. the plaint, as it was originally filed, was silent on the question, of valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction. by order dated 19-1-1974 the learned sub ordinate judge shri ravi kumar referred to the judgment of prithvi rai, j. in dal jit singh v. bishambar dayal where the learned judge had held that in a suit for dissolution of partnership and account the plaintiff has to value his suit approximately at the sum, for which he seeks.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The Petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit which he filed, for accounts against the defendant. He has in the Plaint that on, taking of accounts nearly Rs.2 lacs might be due to him. The suit was valued, for the Purpose of count-fee at Rs.200. According to Order 7, Rule I (i), C.P.C. the plaintiff had to make a statement of the value of the subject matter of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and of court-fee, so far as the case admits. The plaint, as it was originally filed, was silent on the question, of valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction. By order dated 19-1-1974 the learned Sub ordinate Judge Shri Ravi Kumar referred to the judgment of Prithvi Rai, J. in Dal Jit Singh v. Bishambar Dayal where the learned Judge had held that in a suit for dissolution of partnership and account the plaintiff has to value his suit approximately at the sum, for which he seeks the relief and that he could not fix a fanciful and whimsical valuation for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. After indicating the legal position, according to the above decision, the learned trial Judge ordered the plaintiff to value the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction approximately at the sum for which he seeks relief and for that purpose to file an amended plaint It may be noticed that whatever the views expressed by the learned Judge at that time were, based on the judgment of Prithvi Rai. J.. all that he could have directed, the plaintiff was to state the value for the purpose of jurisdiction; this was a value which had to be given by the plaintiff and no specified value could be directed by the Court. The further question would, then arise, as it did arise before the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Sheila Devi v. Kishan Lal (Ruits Nos. 35171, 105170 and 42911971 decided on 26-7-1974 (Delhi) (FB) whether such valuation given by the plaintiff could be interfered with by the Court in such a suit. My Lord the Chief Justice T. V. R Thtachari, who spoke for the Full Bench, observed , the Court had no power to interfere with such valuation for it was for the plaintiff to make such valuation in such a suit. Even the Plaintiff seems to have been under the impression that against the order dated 19-1-1974 he had to file a revision to the High Court as one could see from the plaintiff's representation subsequently made to the, Court. Mere upon he seems to have filed an application for review under Order 47, Rule 1, C. P. C which was dismissed on the ground, properly, that the fact that the law was subsequently decided in a different manner (than what obtained at the time of the original decision) could, not be a ground for review.

2. Despite these happenings what seems to be more important for the Present purpose is the later order which was Passed by the same learned trial Judge on 30-9-1974, which reads, as follows:

'The plaintiff was ordered to file the amended Plaint valuing the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction approximately with the sum for which he seeks relief but the plaintiff has not valued the suit as ordered, Only amended Plaint has been filed by him, The plaintiff is, thereforee, ordered, to show cause, if any, why the plaint be not rejected, under OT&T; 11, C.P.C. by 15-10-1974.'

This revision petition has been filed

3. The facts narrated so far would go to show that despite the impression of the plaintiff that he had to get the earlier order of 19-1-1974 set aside by filing a revision (or even by filing a review application) he is seen to be really aggrieved by the order which was passed on 30-91974 wherein the learned trial judge held that the amended plaint was not in accordance with the earlier order dated 19-1-1974. Even this order was passed on 30-9-1974 itself. The Proper order to pass, when the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction, is not to 'reject' the plaint; the court has only to 'return' the plaint for presentation to the proper court. No such order had been Passed. In a sense, thereforee, the plaintiff could, even wait until such further order is passed (either of rejection wrongly or of 'returning' the plaint. which is the kind of the order that has to be passed) for the Purpose of filing a revision. In this view of the matter it would not be prom to hold that there was any finding attaching to the order dated 19-1-1974 by reason of no revision having been filed as against it.

4. This leaves me completely free to pass the appropriate order, which alone has to be passed. in this revision according to the decision of the Full Bench, namely, that it will be for the plaintiff to state Ids own valuation in such suit for the purposes of jurisdiction, with which the Court cannot interfere

5. Even apart from these considerations I would be inclined to take the view, even if it did arise, that public policy and the interest of the administration of justice clearly require that every suit be tried by the lowest court of competent jurisdiction. This is on the principle that more costly judicial labour than need be should not be expended on such matters. Even if, in any view of the matter, there was an omission to file a revision as against the order dated 19-1-1974 and any application to revise any such order because barred by time when the present revision was filed, even then I would have been inclined to excuse the delay in filing it, or even to hold that I could interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution (which has also been invoked in this case). It is a settled law that the ambit of the power under Article 227 is so wide as to permit interference in cases where the ends of justice do require such a course, even in cases where an appeal lay but was not file or an appeal had become barred by time.

6. Even a revision Petition is not filed in time, the same result must follow. I have discussed this aspect at length in Desh Bandhu Gupta, & Co V. Judge Small Cause Courts, (C. M. W No.161 (it 1972 decided on 31-10-1973 (Delhi) and I need not repeat here what I have already stated therein.

7. I may go even further: supposing a revision had not been filed and the present suit has been returned to the High Court and I was trying that suit sitting on the original side of the High Court I think I would still direct that the suit be sent back for being tried by the lowest; Court of the competent jurisdiction. in adopting such course I would be acting in the interest of judicial administration, namely, of not spending the time of a superior court on a cause which can be well dealt with by a court of lessee competence. In this view any course taken or not taken by a party would have not much relevancy.

8. Even though a further order of 'rejection' (or return of the plaint has not yet been passed) I am inclined to interfere at this stage in revision because such order is bound to be passed in view of what is the expression of opinion by the lower court, To merely dismiss this petition as premature would cause more trouble to the parties. In order to save the parties from this situation and also any embarrassment to the lower Court I am inclined to set aside the impugned order and indicate what should be the true and proper approach to a case of this description. The impugned orders are set aside. The lower Court will proceed further with the suit from the stage where it is according to law. There will be no order as to costs in this revision petition. The parties will appear before the lower Court on 11th August, 1975.

9. Order set aside.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //