Delton Cables Ltd v. Kishore Kumar Sharma & Ors

V.B.GUPTA, J. ab

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI CM (M)No. 894/2010 & CM No. 12237/2010 % Judgment reserved on: 16th July, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 21st July, 2010 M/s Delton Cables Ltd. Delton House, Bharat Ram Road, 24, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002. ….Petitioner Through: Mr. N. K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Harpreet Singh, Adv. Versus 1. Sh. Kishore Kumar Sharma. 2. Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma. 3. Sh. Anup Kumar Sharma. 4. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma. All sons of Sh. Amar Nath Sharma, R/o 19/2-B, Shakri Nagar, Delhi-1100007. ….Respondents Through: Nemo. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on behalf of the petitioner, in which it is prayed that impugned Order dated 2nd July, 2007, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, be set aside. Vide impugned order, application of the petitioner filed under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 Read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (for short as "Code") was dismissed. In the application, petitioner itner alia made the prayer to direct the respondents to pay court fee on market value of suit premises and allow him to proceed with the suit only after he has paid the requisite court fee for the relief of possession of suit property in accordance with Section 7 Clause (v) of the Court Fee Act. 2. Brief facts of this case are that respondents herein, filed a suit for recovery of possession, rent etc against the petitioner herein, in the year 1994. Petitioner filed his Written Statement in the year 1996. Parties have led their respective evidence and matter is listed before trial court for final arguments, when present application was filed. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that trial court has mis applied Section 7 (xi) of Court Fee Act, 1870 to the suit whereas in terms of specific pleadings of the plaintiffs/respondents the suit was governed under Section 7 (v) of the Court Fee Act. The resultant effect of the impugned order is that it erroneously alters the jurisdiction of the suit. In case Section 7 (v) of the Court Fee Act is applied, the suit has to be valued on basis of market value of the suit property which undoubtedly is much more than Rs.20,00,000/- today as well as on the date of filing the suit. The error therefore, attains seriousness since it results in giving jurisdiction to the Court, which otherwise does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. In support of its contentions, Learned counsel cited following judgments; 1. Maiden Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs. Wockhardt Ltd. 157 (2009) Delhi Law Times 65; 2. Biswanath Agarwalla Vs. Sabitri Bera and others, (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 693. 3. Ravinder Kumar Rishi Vs. Sushma Rishi 102 (2003) Delhi Law Times 219. 4. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this Article is limited. 5. Article 227 of The Constitution of India reads as under; "227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court- (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may- (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein; Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed