IA No. 45/2009 & CS(OS) No. 1574/2007 Mr. Mahesh Gupta v.Mr. Ranjit Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 6.2.2009 Date of Order: 16th February, 2009 IA No. 45/2009 & CS(OS) No. 1574/2007 % 16.2.2009 Mr. Mahesh Gupta ... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, Advocate and Ms. Rajeshwari, Advocate Versus Mr. Ranjit Singh & Ors. ... Defendants Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Mr. M.D.Sazid & Mr. Rahul Vidhani, Advocates for D – 1 to 3 Mr. Kapil Kumar Giri, Advocate for D-4 JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. JUDGMENT This Court framed issues in this case vide order dated 14.12.2007. The defendants have made this application for treating an issue about maintainability of the suit before this Court on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction as preliminary issue. Counsel for both the sides addressed on this issue. IA No. 45/2009 & CS(OS) No. 1574/2007 Mr. Mahesh Gupta v.Mr. Ranjit Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 4 2. Plaintiff had filed this suit claiming five reliefs. In para 29, the plaintiff has valued the suit for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction as under: a) For an order of permanent injunction restraining Defendants; this is valued for Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and the Court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon. b) For an order of permanent injunction restraining Defendants from passing off, this relief is valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and Court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon. c) For an order of delivery up, this relief is valued for purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and Court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon. d) For an order of rendition of amounts; this relief is tentatively valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.1000/- and Court fee of Rs.150/- is affixed; the Plaintiff undertakes to pay such additional Court fee as would be found due when the actual account is rendered and ascertained by this Hon’ble Court. e) The rest of the prayers are incapable of valuation, and, therefore, do not attract Court fee. Thus, the suit is valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.20,10,000/- and appropriate Court fee of Rs.22,500 is paid thereon. 3. A perusal of valuation done by the plaintiff shows that in respect of each relief plaintiff has fixed the valuation for the purpose of Court fee and for the purpose of jurisdiction. The total combined value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, if all the reliefs are clubbed together, would be Rs.1600/-. However, after valuing the suit for each relief the plaintiff stated that IA No. 45/2009 & CS(OS) No. 1574/2007 Mr. Mahesh Gupta v.Mr. Ranjit Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 4 suit was being valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.20,10,000/- without specifying how this value has been arrived at. Section 15 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) provides that every suit is mandatorily to be instituted by a plaintiff in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. This Section is a rule of procedure and has been incorporated in CPC so that the different Courts exercise their jurisdiction as per law and no single Court becomes overcrowded with the suits. Where the total value of the suit is Rs.1600/- a plaintiff does not have liberty to affix a higher Court fee on the suit so as to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court he prefers. A suit for the value of Rs.1600/- for the purpose of jurisdiction has to be tried by Civil Judge and has to be filed before the Civil Judge. The plaintiff after valuing the suit at Rs.1600/- could not have paid Court fee on Rs.20,10,000/- and filed the suit before High Court. If this kind of valuation of a suit is allowed then it would result into forum shopping and a person in total disregard of Suit Valuation Act affix Court fee at any amount, pay Court fee of the Court where he wants to get his suit tried i.e. before Civil Judge or before Additional District Judge or before the High Court (since all the three have original jurisdiction) and get his matter fixed before that Court. Section 15 of CPC then becomes redundant and the legislative mandate that suit shall be instituted in lowest grade Court competent to try it shall stand nullified. Plaintiff has relied upon Dev Pharmacy v. Nova International 2003(27) PTC 395 (Del) and stated that this suit was maintainable before this Court. In Dev Pharmacy case, the plaintiff had valued the relief of rendition of accounts at IA No. 45/2009 & CS(OS) No. 1574/2007 Mr. Mahesh Gupta v.Mr. Ranjit Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 4 Rs.20,01,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction. In the present case, the plaintiff has valued the relief for rendition of accounts at Rs.1,000/- and not at Rs.20 lac thus, the judgment relied upon by the plaintiff is of no help to him. 4. I consider that plaint is to be returned to the plaintiff to be filed before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction competent to try a suit worth Rs.1600/-. This Court cannot entertain a suit only because plaintiff is rich enough to afford Court fee on amount of Rs.20 lac. The plaint, therefore, be returned to the plaintiff to be presented before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. February 16, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn