IN THE mGH COURT OF PJDICATURE :: CG :: BILASFUR M.A. NQ : "8 S OF 2011 APPELLANT PLABmFF &v\/^^/ €<^ ^^//^ ^ ^>" /^ ^y/<9 <' -VERSUS- ^©Bw- Flowtech Engineers (Registered Partneiship Firm) Office: 27/68, Purani Basti, Tiiri Hatari, Raipur Distt-Raipur CG Through: l.' RajkishoreAgrawal,aged34yrs Z Ku.PratimaAgrawal,aged32yrs ^3. Brijkishore Agrawal, agedMyis 4. Ku. Vandana Agrawal, aged 28yrs 5. Ku. Ranjana Agrawal, ay/sd. 76yrs 6. ShriKishoreAgrawa],aged24yrs 7. KainaIKishoreAgrawal,aged22yrs 8. Smt Lalita Bai Agrawal, aged 20 yrs no 1A6,7 sons and no 1^f> daughters and no 8 widow of Shri Ranchhod Lal Agrawal r/o Purani Bast, Turi Hatari R Raipur, Distt-Raipur CG <c _ /^JHh-e;,^ r>e ^->o > c/ ^"^ 'O co e -v - o f- - /^ ^T—'y, ,r rf ^ 13-»-4] IC.'T >->l»'e A^g^aun^? £7^rh^ aqnc.hh^ <-^ ^^wo^ -^o Pu^<>ni %ff^ )--.•; ru'-? ^f-a" %oi-pUT - O.;.t+.^ -gnjpu^e'-' ^. 'Sy. RESPONDENTS DEFH<DANTS Chhattisgarh State Indiistrial Devdopment Corporation Limited Ufe Insurance Corporation Compound Pandari - Raipiir CG Distt-RaipurCG The Deputy General Manager C.G. State Development Corporation Umited, Ufe Insurance Ccffporation Compound Pandari - Raipua- CG Distt-RaipurCG ^- ff^ft The Managing Director, C.G. State Development Ccuporation Linuted, Ijfe Insuiance Corporation Campound Pandari - Raipur CG Distt-RaipurCG 4. New Bqali (Rutcfl )Foundari (Registered) G.T.Road, Batala Distt - Gurudaspiir: Punjab 5. M/s Jabbal Brofliers Prop: Shri Maiunder Singh . s/o Kamail Singh Jabbal & Sons, Plot no 9'% Sector D - Industrial Area Urla Sarara Road, Raipur Distt-RaipurCG -t MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43RULE 1 (al OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 ^VI Being aggrieved by (fae order passed by Ae Leamed^^B^j^, Ciyiljudge, Cbiss-H m dvfl suit no 29-A/2009 28%" 'ssl 2011^etween <he parties : Howtech Engineers -vs- C.G. State Indiistrial Devdopment Coiporation Lunited and oiher [\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Misc. Appeal No. 85/2011 Flowtech Engineers through Rajkishore Agrawal and others. Versus Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others. APPBAL U/0 43 RULE 1 (a) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDDRE SB:- HON. SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J. PRESENT:- Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, counsel for the appeUant. ORAL ORDER (22.11.2011) Heard on I.A.No.02, appUcation for taldng document i.e. plaint on record. 2. On due consideration, I.A.No.02 is allowed and the documents annexed fherewith are taken on record. 3. Heard on admission. 4. The instant appeal'under Order 43 Rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code>) has been filed against the order dated 28.03.2011 passed by the 16ttl -Civil Judge Class-II whereby and whereunder the Court below has returned the plaint for its presentation in the proper Court having jurisdiction, after valuing the suit at Rs.2,72,072.40 and after paying ad valorem Court fees. 5. Facts in brief are as under: Civil Suit was brought by the appellant/plaintiff in substance-'to challenge the recovery order of Rs.2,72,072.40 issued by the 'Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development ^^ ^ '^•. ^NN^ Corporation Limited i.e. respondent No.l inter alia on the ground: despite notice of the appellant/plaintiff, the respondent No.l/Corporation has paid the amount to defendant No.4 and thus the appellant/plaintiff is not liable for payment of above amount to the Corporation. 6. The trial €ourtframed preliminary issue as issue No.l with regard to court fees and valuation of the suit. After hearmg both the parties, -the trial Court, having found, the Civil Suit was brought by the appellant/plaintiff in substance to challenge the recovery of order of Rs.2,72,702.40 issued by the Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and for the above relief the suit has to be valued at Rs.2,72,702.40 for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction of the Court, has returned the plaint for its presentation in fhe proper Court having jurisdiction, after valuing the suit at Rs.2,72,072.40 and after paying ad valorem. Court fees. 4. Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: fhe suit is not for the recovery of the aboveamount but has been filed seeking a relief of declaration to the effect that the above recovery is illegal and unwarranted, therefore, the suit has been valued at Rs.300/- each for purpose of declaration and for 'p'ermanent injunction and accordingly proper Court fees has been paid and the trial Court has illegally held otherwise and retumed the plaint for its presentation in the proper Court. 5. I h'ave heard leamed counsel for the appellant and perused the order impugned. 6. A bare perusal of the plaint averments would reveal, in substance, the appellant wants to avoid the recovery of Rs.2,72,702.40, ,and therefore, the appellant is required to _^ ,^- ll<%» %^B 11 ^ .^? ^ &? Y value the suit at Rs.2,72,702.40 for the purpose of valuation and Court fees and accordingly ad valorem Court fees is also required to be paid. 7. A Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in the case of Badrilal Bholaram, Contractor, Indore v. State ofMadhya Pradesh and another, 1963 M.P.L.J. 717, has held as under: "Wliere the relief sought itself has a real money value which can be objectively ascertained, that value is the value of the relief and any other value ascribed to it will be arbitrary and unreasonable. Wliere a plaintiff is sought to be made liable either under a decree or a deed for a specified amount and he seeks to avoid that liability, the value ofthe relief is the extent of the loss, to which but for the suit he would be subjected and from which he wants to be relieved" 8. In view ofjudgment of M.P. High Court, to which I arn also in respectful agreement, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court has not coramitted any illegality in returning the plaint for its presentation to a Court having jurisdiction, after valuing the suit at Rs.2,72,072.40 and after paying ad valorem Court fees. 9. For the foregoing, the appeal being devoid of ment, is liable-to be and is hereby dismissed. Sa7- ''''•K. Agama; Judce ^