^.i .<< 1 i' 1 2. Sanjaya Kateliha, aged 40 years, Son of Late Shri Premchanda Kateliha, resident of Lodhi Para, Sarkanda, B'ilaspur (CG) Yogesh Kurnar Kateliha, aged 39 years, son of Late Shri Premchanda Kateiiha, Resident of Lodhi Para, Sarkanda, Biiaspur (CG) Smt Shobha Kateliha, aged 60 years, Widow of Late-Shri Premchanda Kateliha, resident of Lodhi Para, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (CG) Shri Sunil Kumar Kateliha, aged 25 years, Son of Shri Rajkumar kateliha, Resident of KateNha Ni'A'as, Kashyap Colony, Bilaspur "ahsil and District Bilapsur (CG) Shri RajRumar Kateliha, aged 52 years, Son of Shri Harishankar Kateliha, Resident of Kateliha Niwas; Kashyap Coiony, Bilaspur, Tahsil and Distriot Bilaspur (CG) Present: Shri M.D. Shanna, counsel forthe applicants. (Passedon03.12.2008) Submissbns of Shri M.D. Sharma, learned counse' for the applicants on admission were heard at length. Reiiance v.'as placed on Subhash Chand Jain Vs. Chairman. M.P. Electridtv Board ana' others 2000 (3) M.P.L.J. 522 and Rs;' KaurW/o Garumukh Sinah Randhawa Vs. M/s. Kinetic Gallerv and another 2000 (21 IVI.P.L.J. 72. Impugned order and annexures '."ere perused. (2) The appiicants/defendants are aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2008 passed by the 1 Civil Judge, Class-li, Biiaspur in civii suit No.41-A/2008, whereby the application under Ora'er 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC filied by the applicants/defendants was dismissed. (3) Brief facts are that the non-appticants/piaintifFs instituted civil suit N0.41-A/2008 bsfore the 1 Civil Judge, Class-tl, Bilaspur against the appiicants/defendants for permanent injunction. It was averred in ihe plaint that the non-appiicants/plaintiffs are the tenants of the applicants/defendants in the Bras Metai Ro!ling Miil (henceforth the 'Mi'il;) under agreement dated 09.07.2007, at a monthly rent of Rs.8,334/-. Lease v;as granted by fhe applicants/defendants ^L<T^ +<.- -3. -^- for a period of 5 years with effect from 09.07.2007 to 08.07.2012. After taking the IViill on lease, the non-applicants/plaintiffs had spent huge amount on maintenance, repairs and establishing electric connection and in making the Mill operational. It v/as further pleaded that the applicanfs/'defendants were trying to forcibly and illegally interfere in t'ne operation of the Mil! by the non- applicants/plaintiffs. The foliowing relief was claimed in the suit. "(ar) ^re 1^> <ji<i"i<t"i ^ qsr Tl' ?q ^Rrar^piiT ^ f^res ^H 3TTSPI ^T WJpft 1?ri'ETT§iT ufNt W uIT^ fe flRl<1|tflil"l oftuT ^V .aTf?W f T f^fre' 08.07-2012 tf<S qi<D^)"lY <^ gRT 'H'isllRld qi? gTCT I?? TtRTT Plef ^ ;a'En-a'T ^' RrfSr ^ 3R;a>^ ^ .sn^r gT^ f^ f^n ^RH: sn^ ^'sT <^ wm ^ 1{v{f ^ R<P^ W-q rpff ult 'q^f.ftq ^t<f!ri-!4 <3^((T Wq^ fe-IPft ud^ (•H) qT^Ttifl <Kt gfiT<iT^T°]t' ^ ^iyf gre ara (4) In para 11 of the plaint, the suit was vaiued as under:- "(11} qg t^ qi^tIPT ^l'lllq -^iKlifiy ^ wNq? ^ wRT^WTirai tsrpftf^EiT^T ^ grc <ST ^if< ^pri <E^ t ftre w so/- ^ri <Fr f^rfNrr ^irq • uTTtIT f I" (5) An app!ication was flled by the appiicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read vi'ith Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the non-applicants/plaintiffs ought to have valued the suit at the market value of the IVIili i.e. at Rs.20,00,000/- and upon such valuation being made, the Court of 1 Civil Judge, Class-11, Bilaspur would cease to have jurisdiotion to try the suit. Learned 1 Civil Judge, Class-li, Bilaspur has dlsmissed the application by the impugned order. (6) Under Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 to obtain an injunction, the plaintiff is required to state the amount at which he vaiues the relief sough!_ Cff^sfcj - - ^ -s,— /-..- 3 - The plaintiff is thus at liberty to value the relief of injunction for purposes of Court fees. Since the relief under Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act falls under the oategory of suits mentioned in Section 8 of the Suits Vaiuation Act, the valuation of suit for purposes of Court Fees and jurisdiction has to be the same. (7) Ordinarily the liberty of the plaintiff to vaiue relief for injunction has to be respected unless it is shovi/n that the valuation of suit by the plaintiff is unreasonable or arbitrary. It is v/eil settled that the Court Fees payable on the plaint has to be decided on the basis of the allegations and the prayer in the piaint and uniess it ;s shown that the vaiuation put by the non-applicants/piaintiffs on the reiief claimed in the suit is arbitrary or unreasonable or demonstrably under valued, the valuation put by the plaintiff should be accepted. For payment of ad-vaiorem Court fees on the reiief of injunction under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 it has to be shown that there is a nexus between the value of the subject matter of the suit and the relief sought. As in the case of Subhash Chand vs. Chairman, ^4.P. Electricify Board (supra) relied by ihe learned counsel for the applicants, the ptaintiff had received additiona! biiis from the Etectricity Board for Rs.2,14,747/-. A relief of permanent injunction was claimed praying that the Eiectricity Board be restrained from disconnecting the electrio suppiy. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the Tact that the piaintiff v'/anted to avoid the liability to pay a specified amount by seeking relief of injunotion, it was held that the plaintiff ought to have paid ad-valorem Court fees on the reiief of injunction. No such situation exists in the present case. (8) In the present case, the non-applicants/piaintiffs have simply ciaimed the re'ief of permanent injunction to restrain the applicants/defendants from illegally interfering with the operation of the Mill by the non-applicants/plaintifrs. As per averments in the plaint, the non-applicants/piaintiffs are the iessees of the applicants/defendants in relation to the Mill. Merely to restrain the applioants/defendants from interfering with the operation of the Miil othemise than in accordance with law the non-applicants/p'aintiffs were neither required to pay ad-valorem Court fees on the value of the Mill nor on the amount spent by them in making the Mill operational. The 1 Civil Judge, Class-11, Bilaspur \vas thus wholly justified' in holding that it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to vaiue the suit on the quantum of money spent by the plaintiff for making the Milt operational. The case of Raj kaur Vs. Kinetic Gallery (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the applicants is distinguishabie on facts and does not help the appiicants in any manner. In that case, the suit was for deolaration with a consequential relief of injunction and not solely for injunction. :'^i .-l, <3^4-<<i -^i ^T^ (9) It is aiso pertinent to note that the application filed by the applicants/defendants was under Order 7 Rule 11 (d). Under Order 7 Rule 11 (d), the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statementjn the plaint So be barred by any law. No such ground is made out either from the averments in the ptaint or from the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. (10) In the result, the 1 Civil Judge, Class-11 was wholly justified in rejectins the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC filed by the applicants/defendants. No illegality or jurisdictionai error is seen in the impugned order. The revision_ l-—-' being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. _^-—-'_'" 3sa\vebD ^ D^^'iudgP ^^