MAN MOHAN KHEMKA Vs. KAILASH KUMAR SHARMA
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
MAN MOHAN KHEMKA
KAILASH KUMAR SHARMA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This application for a Rule under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on being moved against order No. 40-dated 9th September, 1983, made in Title Suit No. 315 of 1981, by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Howrah, was opposed by Mr. Mukherjee, who appeared for the caveator opposite party. By such order, the exception as taken by the defendant / petitioner on valuation and court fees, were negatived.
(2.) The plaintiff/opposite party brought the concerned Title Suit No. 315 of 1981 praying for (1) a decree of eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit property, (2) costs of the said property and (3) any other relief or relief's to which he would be entitled in law and equity. It has been claimed by the defendant/petitioner that the said suit was instituted on the incorrect allegations that he was a licensee in respect of the suit premises and the license was revoked by the plaintiff/opposite party In fact such stand as indicated above, was duly taken amongst others by the defendant/petitioner in his written statement and he further claimed to be a tenant in respect of a complete and duly separated flat consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bath, privy, verandah, courtyard, at a monthly rental of Rs.150/-, payable according to English calendar month. It was further asserted that the suit premises, possession whereof was being claimed on eviction of the defendant / petitioner, would be worth not less than R. 30,000/- and as such, the concerned suit being a suit for possession, should have been valued at the amount. But, the plaintiff/opposite party wrongfully valued the suit at Rs. 25/- only on the allegation that for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs. 25/- under S. 7(vi)(b)(ii) of the Court fees Act.
(3.) It was the categorical claim of the defendant / petitioner that the value of the premises can by no standard be such a paltry sum of Rs. 25/- and he duly challenged the valuation as made through a petition dated 10th August, 1983 and prayed for a decision on such valuation, first. That application was opposed by the plaintiff / opposite party and the learned Munsif disposed of the application by the order as impeached, holding, inter alia, amongst others that the plaintiff / opposite party paid the court fees duly, on the basis of his pleadings and the relief's as claimed. The learned Court was further of the view that the suit was properly valued and Court fees as paid, was sufficient, apart from holding, that he had jurisdiction to try the suit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.