Defendant has right to raise objection as to undervaluation of the suit which has to be decided as preliminary issue by the Court

 In the case of The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. M/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust, as reported in MANU/SC/0515/2012 : AIR 2012 SC 3912, after referring to the relevant provision, it has been held that --

"In order to consider an application under Order VII Rule 11, the Court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage of the suit."

5. But in the case of Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar, as reported in MANU/SC/0016/1979 : 1980 (1) SCC 616, it has been held that --

"The plaintiff is entitled to give a tentative valuation if in spite of his genuine efforts, he is unable to make out an exact valuation, but plaint is liable to be rejected in case of deliberate undervaluation."

6. "Similarly, in the case of Sujir Keshav Nayak v. Sujir Ganesh Nayak, as reported in MANU/SC/0284/1992 : 1992 (1) SCC 731, it has been held that --

"In suit filed before Court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction, defendant has right to raise objection as to undervaluation of the suit which has to be decided as preliminary issue by the Court. It has also been held that if Court, on being prima-facie satisfied that valuation of suit was arbitrary, can direct the suit to be properly valued."

It has been further held that --

"In suits for accounting or for dissolution of partnership and accounting filed in Courts of limited pecuniary jurisdiction the plaintiff must take every care to disclose valuation which is not arbitrary, as the plaint is liable to be rejected on objection of the defendants, but in suits of such nature, filed before Courts of unlimited jurisdiction, the valuation disclosed by the plaintiff can be accepted as correct. This however, does not mean that Court's power to examine the correctness of valuation is taken away. If on perusal of plaint, the Court is prima facie satisfied that the plaintiff has not been fair and valued the suit or relief arbitrarily it is not precluded from directing the plaintiff to value it properly and pay Court-fee on it. Thus, summarizing the law, it has been held as under:

(1) Where the question of Court-fee is linked with jurisdiction, a defendant has a right to raise objection and the Court should decide it as a preliminary issue.

(2) But in those cases where the suit is filed in Court of unlimited jurisdiction, the valuation disclosed by the plaintiff or payment of amount of Court-fee on relief claimed in plaint or memorandum of appeal should be taken as correct.

(3) This does not preclude the Court even in suits filed in Courts of unlimited jurisdiction from examining if the valuation, on averments in plaint, is arbitrary."

7. In the present case, the trial Court with a limited pecuniary jurisdiction, cannot be said to have erred in directing the plaintiff to value the suit as per the guidelines inasmuch as it is very much within the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge even if material would not have been brought to the notice of the Civil Judge, to direct the plaintiff to value the relief as per the market guidelines.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

W.P. No. 7303 of 2016

Decided On: 26.10.2016

 Manoj Jain and Ors.

Vs.

Pramod Jain and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vivek Agarwal, J.

Citation: AIR 2017 Madhya pradesh 39