Allowed

Mamidipally Appalla Narasimha Murthy v. M.V. Prabhaker

Chhattisgarh HC5 Aug 2024WP227/499/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order setting aside a civil suit due to alleged improper valuation and insufficient court fees. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and holding that the trial court acted wrongly in demanding higher valiation for a suit seeking only declaration and injunction.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.04.2023 accepting the objection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the petition objecting to the same is set aside. The petition is allowed.

Mamidipally Appalla Narasimha Murthy Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:29353

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 499 of 2023

¶6

Mamidipally Appalla Narasimha Murthy S/o Late M. Venkata Ramanna Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 5/6, Maitry Nagar, Risali Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

¶7

... Petitioner.

¶8

versus

¶9

M.V. Prabhaker S/o Late M. Venkata Ramanna Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 25, Door No. 508, Panchsheel Nagar East Charoda Bhilai, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.).

¶10

M.V.S. Ramesh S/o Late Venkata Ramanna Aged About 50 Years R/o Door 50-21-24/2, Flat No. 13, Bhavani Apartment, 2 Balayya Shastry Lay-Out, Visakhapatnam (A.P.).

¶11

N. Sai Laxmi Aged About 46 Years, D/o Late M. Venkata Ramanna, W/o N Sai Ram, R/o Door 48-7-56, 1st Floor, Amma Residency, Rama Talkies Road, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam, Andra Pradesh.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner :	Shri Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1:	Ms. Aakancha Vishwakarma appears on behalf of Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 :	Shri B. Uma Maheswara Rao appeared through V.C.

¶14

({Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari}) Judgment On Board

¶15

06/08/2024

¶16

1. This Petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of order dated 18.04.2023 passed in Civil Suit No.269A/2022 by the 15^th Civil Judge Class 2, Durg whereby, the objection raised by the defendants that

¶17

¶18

the suit has not been valued properly and proper court fees has not been affixed in the plaint, has been accepted.

¶19

1. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff has filed civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in which, Defendants No.1 and 2 have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC raising objection that the suit has been undervalued and proper court fees has also not been affixed and the suit ought to have been valued according to the market value of the suit property. The said objection has been accepted by the trial Court. Hence this petition.

¶20

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that learned trial Court has not appreciated the facts as the petitioner/plaintiff has not filed the suit for possession but for declaration and permanent injunction and it is well settled that for the purpose of valuation, only the plaint averments have to be seen and the petitioner/plaintiff is at liberty to put his own valuation based on such a relief. He further submits that this Court, in the matter of Smt. Neelam Dagla vs. Sarwan Gond and Anr in FA No.557 of 2018 judgment dated 20.06.2019, has categorically held that the plainitff is free to evaluate his suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and claim for declaration when fixed court fees is paid according to the Schedule of the Court Fee Act as applicable at Chhattisgarh State. He, therefore, would submit that a wrong direction has been made and prays to allow the petition and set aside the order impugned.

¶21

1. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would support the order impugned.

¶22

¶23

1. Perusing the averments made in the plaint, it is explicit that the suit has been filed for delcaration and permanent injuction and not for possession and the law is well settled that in such type of a suit plaintiff is at liberty to put his own valuation on such a relief though it should not be wholly unreasonable or arbitrary and the said principle has been reiterated in the matter of Smt. Neelam Dagla( supra ).

¶24

1. In view of above, this Court finds that learned trial Court has wrongly made a direction for correction of the valuation and affixing the proper court fees in spite of the same being just and proper.

¶25

1. Accordingly, impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside.

¶26

1. Resultantly, the petition is allowed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

({ Deepak Kumar Tiwari }) JUDGE

¶29

Avinash

Mamidipally Appalla Narasimha Murthy v. M.V. Prabhaker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamidipally Appalla Narasimha Murthy v. M.V. Prabhaker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Chhattisgarh Pathya Pustak Nigam

Safed Ram Pradhan Vs Ganesh Ram

Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj @ Ishak Khakha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Eagle Hunter Solution Ltd. Vs Hind Energy And Coal Beneficiation i Ltd. And Anr.

Devchand Kurrey Vs State of Chhattisgarh