Disposed

Sudha Gupta & Anr. v. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo

Delhi HC18 Mar 2025CM(M)/1399/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging dismissal of their Order VII Rule 11 application on pecuniary jurisdiction grounds sought disposal with a request that the trial court decide the jurisdiction issue as framed, uninfluenced by the earlier order, leaving the merits untouched.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; trial court to decide pecuniary jurisdiction issue without prejudice to its 05.09.2022 order; petitioner free to request preliminary-issue treatment.

Sudha Gupta & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh Matharoo — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 18^th March, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 1399/2022 & CM APPL. 54011/2022 SUDHA GUPTA & ANR.

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

GURMEET SINGH MATHAROO

.....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶12

The petitioners are defending a suit which seeks injunction and monetary compensation.

¶13

The grievance relates to dismissal of their application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶14

According to petitioners, the concerned Court of learned District Judge did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain such suit, as the same had been undervalued.

¶15

However, when asked, learned counsel for petitioner, very fairly, submitted that the issues have already been framed by the learned Trial Court by order dated 07.01.2023 and one of the issues is:-

¶16

“Whether the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court?”

¶17

After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for petitioner submits that, at the moment, the petitioner would be satisfied if the learned Trial Court is requested to consider the abovesaid issue at appropriate stage,

¶18

CM(M) 1399/2022 1

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.03.2025 10:57:49

¶21

without being prejudiced by order dated 05.09.2022 which is under challenge in the present petition.

¶22

He also submits that he would also make appropriate request before the learned Trial Court to treat the abovesaid issue as a preliminary issue .

¶23

The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the observation that, as and when, the abovesaid issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is decided by the learned Trial Court, such decision is made in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by its earlier order dated 05.09.2022.

¶24

It is open to petitioner to move appropriate application before the learned Trial Court if he wants any particular issue to be treated as a preliminary issue.

¶25

It is also clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion with respect to the abovesaid issue of pecuniary jurisdiction, either way.

¶26

The present petition, along with pending application, if any, stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶27

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶28

MARCH 18, 2025/ss/SS

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

CM(M) 1399/2022 2

¶31

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.03.2025 10:57:49

Sudha Gupta & Anr. v. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha Gupta & Anr. v. Gurmeet Singh Matharoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babli Vs Ram Kumar & Anr.

Babli Vs Ram Kumar & Anr.

M/S vs Metallic Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S K S Engg. Works

Pooja Die Moulds Vs Rajdhani Metal Store

Ruchi Vs Rakesh Kumar

C P Rama Rao Sole Proprietor Vs National Highway Authority of India

Arihant Superstructures Limited Vs Pushpa Agarwal

Davender Vs Vijay Kumar

Babli Vs Ram Kumar & Anr.

Babli Vs Ram Kumar & Anr.

M/S vs Metallic Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S K S Engg. Works

Akhil Gupta Vs M/S Ops Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Ashish Sharma Vs Vidushi Pathak