NAND KISHORE KALRA V. HARISH MATHUR: MANU/DE/2215/2015 (DELHI HC)
FACT
The appellant-defendant, Nand Kishore Kalra, challenged the judgment of the Additional District Judge-02, South District, Saket Courts Complex, in response to a suit filed by Harish Mathur for possession of a tenanted property.
The suit property, located at E-38, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, consisted of a shop on the ground floor, which the appellant had leased since 1980.
After the demise of the plaintiff's father, the appellant started paying rent to the plaintiff's mother until her demise in 2005.
The plaintiff-respondent, claiming to be the sole heir and owner of the property, sought possession and arrears of rent from the appellant.
Disputes arose regarding the rent amount, with the plaintiff claiming Rs. 11,000 per month and the appellant contesting it at Rs. 600 per month.
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court both found in favour of the plaintiff, confirming the rent at Rs. 11,000 per month and granting possession and arrears of rent accordingly.
Hence, the present appeal before the HC.
ISSUE
The main issues revolved around the rent amount, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and the validity of the amendment application seeking to modify the claim amount.
RULE
The objection raised by the appellant regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court could not be entertained at the appellate stage because it was not raised initially. According to Section 21(2) of the CPC, objections not raised at the first instance cannot be raised late.
The Plaintiff’s amendment application to give up a part of the claim in order to address the objection regarding the court's pecuniary jurisdiction was justified.
JUDGMENT
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Trial Court based on the claim amount exceeding its pecuniary jurisdiction, by claiming that the aggregate value of the reliefs sought were in excess of Rs. 3 Lakhs
However, the Court held that the objection to jurisdiction based on the claim's valuation was invalid, as the suit for ejectment is valued based on annual letting value, not market value.
According to Section 21(2) of the CPC, objections not raised initially can't be raised later.
In Subhash Mahadevasa Habib vs. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas & Others, (2007) 13 SCC 650, the Supreme Court has noted:
The objection was raised at the appellate stage and on becoming aware of it plaintiff filed application for amendment.
It is open to a plaintiff, at any stage of the proceedings, to give up a part of his claim unconditionally. Therefore, prima-facie, it appears that there could be no justification to deny the amendment application moved by the respondent/ plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint, so as to give up a part of his claim to obviate the objection with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge.
The Court allowed the respondent's application to amend the plaint to reduce the claim amount, ensuring compliance with the jurisdictional limit.
The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments.