OMP/440/2018 on 31 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA OMP No. 440 of 2018 & OMP No. 186 of 2018 in Civil Suit No. 2 of 2009. Decided on : 31.12.2018 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mohinder Kumar Sood

…..Plaintiff. Versus Ramesh Kumar Sood and others ….Defendants.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. OMP No. 440 of 2018 For the applicant: Mr. Ashok Sood, Advocate. For the respondents/non­applicants: Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate vice counsel for non­applicant/defendant No.2. Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, for non­ applicant/defendant No.3. Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate,

for

non­ applicant/defendant No.4. Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel, for non­applicant/defendant No.5. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

…2… OMP No. 186 of 2018 For the applicant: Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents/non­applicants: Mr. Ashok Sood, Advocate, for non­ applicant/plaintiff. Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate vice counsel for non­applicant/defendant No.2. Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, for non­ applicant/defendant No.3. Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel, for non­applicant/defendant No.5.

Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral)

Through OMP No. 440 of 2018, the plaintiff/applicant seeks leave of the Court, to, incorporate in paragraph 12, of, the initially instituted plaint, the hereinafter extracted amendments:­ “That the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction newly added joint properties detailed in para 3(a) and 3 (b) of amended plaint is assessed at Rs. 45,00,000/­ and value of the share of plaintiff comes to 5,00,000/­ thus the total

…3… value of all properties sought to be partitioned now comes to Rs. 1,17,00,000/­ (one Crore and Seventeen laks) i.e Rs.72,00,000/­ + Rs. 45,00,000=1,17,00,000/­ and total value of the share of the plaintiff on all properties sought to be partitioned is assessed at Rs. 19,00,000/­ i.e Rs. 14,00,000+Rs.500000=19,00,000/­ for seeking relief of partition by metes and bounds and fixed Court fee of Rs. 98/­ is payable as the plaintiff is in physical possession of one semi built shop in joint suit property, therefore, the Court fee of Rs. 98/­ is affixed on the plaint for the said relief and for the second relief of rendition of accounts and seeking decree for recovery of amount to which the plaintiff is found tobe entitled on rendition of accounts of income joint properties from defendants is tentatively assessed to Rs.2,00,000/­ of newly added properties. Thus total value of the share of the plaintiff in the income of the suit joint properties is tentatively assessed to Rs. 17,00,000/­ i.e Rs. 15,00,000+Rs. 200000=Rs. 17,00,000/­ and court fee on amount of Rs. 15,00,000/­ is already affixed on original plaint and on added amount of Rs. 2,00,000/­ shall be affixed when this application is allowed by this Hon’ble Court and any additional court fee if any is found to payable will be paid by the plaintiff on the actual amount found to be payable to the plaintiff on rendition of accounts. The value of suit for the relief of injunction is fixed Rs.130/­ and court fee has been affixed on the plaint. It is clarified that the total value of the suit for the

…4… purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction in accordance with law and Punjab High Court Rules and order as applicable to this Hon’ble Court comes to 1,17,00,000/­ (one crore seventeen laks) being total value of all joint properties sought to be partitioned and value of share of the plaintiff in income of joint properties to which he is likely to found entitled on rendition of accounts comes to Rs. 17,00,000/­ by adding the same to value of joint properties value of suit comes for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction comes to Rs. 1,34,00,000/­ (i.e Rs.1,17,00,000+ Rs. 17,00,000=Rs. 1,34,00,000/­) Even value of the share of the plaintiff in joint properties and share of plaintiff in income pecuniary value comes to Rs. 26,00,000/­ (i.e Rs. 19,00,000+Rs. 17,00,000=Rs. 36,00,000/­).”

2. The defendant No.4/applicant, also through OMP No. 186 of 2018, cast under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 of the C.P.C, seeks an order being made by this Court, for, the plaint being returned to the plaintiff, for its, being filed before the Civil Court concerned, hence, holding the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction, for, trying the civil suit.

3. Both the afore OMPs are hence amenable for a common verdict being rendered thereon, hence, they are

…5… disposed, of, under a common verdict. Upon a reading of paragraph 12 of the initially instituted plaint, it is manifest, that, some of the undivided suit properties rather remaining omitted, to be pleaded therein, and, through OMP No. 440 of 2018 the plaintiff/applicant seeks leave, to, add the apt properties, detailed therein, in, paragraph 12, of, the initially instituted plaint. Even though, the afore espoused relief is grantable to th plaintiff/applicant, given the adding of all the undivided suit properties, inter­se, the contesting litigants’ rather being a dire legal necessity, (i) given all being the subject matter of the extant lis, and, also, for obviating, the attraction thereon, the mandate of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, against institution of a subsequent suit, by the plaintiff, for including in the apposite plaint, some of the properties, as remained omitted to be incorporated, in the initially instituted plaint, (ii) yet the learned counsel for defendant No.4, has contended with much vigor before this Court, that, even if the valuation of the shares of the plaintiff/applicant, in the undivided suit properties is computed, thereupon also this Court, not, holding the requisite

…6… pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Consequently, he insists that the prayer made in OMP No. 186 of 2018, for an order being pronounced, for return of plaint, being rather allowed by this Court.

4. The submission addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for defendant No. 4, is, rudderless (i) given for the purpose, of, valuation, of, the suit for assumption of pecuniary jurisdiction, by the Civil Court, the requisite parameter for making an apt determination, being, the one contained in Volume 1 Chapter 3, Part C of Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, the relevant clause 8 whereof, is, extracted hereinafter, (ii) wherein it is categorically specified, that, in suits of partition vis­a­vis undivided properties, the apt mode for determining or making valuation(s), vis­a­vis, the the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court concerned, being the one appertaining, to, the entire valuation of the entire undivided property, and, only obviously for affixation of Court fee, the, value of the share therein of the applicant rather constituting the apt parameter.

…7… “Suits for partition of Property. Court­fee­ (a) As determined by the Court­fees Act, 1870. Value­(b) For the Purposes of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, the value of the whole property as determined by Sections 3,8 and 9 of the Suits Valuation At, 1887.”

5. Bearing in mind, the afore parameter(s), and, applying, it, vis­a­vis the apt clause, thereupon the afore relief as espoused, vis­a­vis, the amendment being, made, in paragraph 12 of the OMP No. 440 of 2018, is, accepted. Consequently, OMP No. 440 of 2018 is allowed, and, the requisite leave is granted. The amended plaint, if, not filed be filed within one week, and, written­statement thereto be also filed within four weeks thereafter. In view of order passed in OMP No. 440 of 2018, OMP No. 186 of 2018 is dismissed. Court fee in accordance with law, if not fixed, be fixed, and, in commensuration with the valuation of the share, of, the plaintiff, in, the undivided suit property. 31st December, 2018 ( Sureshwar Thakur ), (priti)

Judge.