Writ Petition No. 6798/2011(I). Case: Smt. Kusuma Rathore Vs Sharad Sharma. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition No. 6798/2011(I)
CounselFor Appellant: Shri D.D. Bansal, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Vivek Jain, Advocate
JudgesSujoy Paul, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Rule 11; Section 15; Constitution of India - Article 227; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 - Sections 12(1)(a), 13(1), 13(1)(a)
Judgement DateOctober 09, 2012
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Order:

Sujoy Paul, J.

  1. The petitioner aggrieved by order dated 10.01.2011 has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The grievance of the petitioner/defendant is that in the civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent, the plaintiff/respondent has overvalued the suit, which amounts to abuse of process of law and, therefore, court below should have allowed his application and should have returned the plaint. Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the application, Annexure P-4, is filed with a prayer to return the plaint for the reason stated above. However, he fairly submits that it is erroneously captioned as application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, whereas it should be treated as an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC. By relying certain judgments, he criticized the order of the court below.

  2. Per Contra, Shri Vivek Jain, Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff supported the order passed by the court below.

  3. The allegation in the plaint is that the petitioner/defendant has not paid rent w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and amount of Rs. 91,650/- is due as rent for last 13 years. The valuation of suit was based on an amount of Rs. 1,02,700/-. The court fees is also paid by the plaintiff on that basis. Section 12(1)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, provides that only 3 years rent is legally recoverable. On the basis of aforesaid, it is stated that respondent/plaintiff has erroneously claimed rent for 13 years and quantified and paid the court fees on that basis which is bad in law. The court below has rejected the said application on the ground that even if under Section 13(1)(a) of the said Act, the plaintiff may be entitled to get rent for only 3 years but nothing prevents him to value the suit on the basis of entire rent. In other words, the court below has given a finding that nothing prevents the plaintiff to assess the valuation of the suit on the basis of entire unpaid rent although relief may be restricted to the extent it is permissible (3 years) under the law.

  4. In the considered opinion of this Court, as per Section 15 of the CPC every suit has to be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. The hierarchy of the courts are made so that the aggrieved party can avail the remedy of appeal etc. The valuation, in my view, has a direct nexus with the relief permissible in law. If law...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT