Valuation..

Dhiraj A Rajhans (Querist) 05 March 2012 This query is : Resolved
plaintiff filed suit for partition. defendants appeared and filed application under O 7 R 11 b that relief claimed is undervalued and hence plaint be rejected. but in the mean time plaintiff filed application under O 6 R 17 and is seeking amendment of valuation of the suit and cited reason that it was due to mistake and the mistake was shown by defendant..can amendment application be filed for correcting the suit valuation ??

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Adv.R.P.Chugh (Expert) 05 March 2012
At the time of rejection only the contents of the plaint are perused, and if the claim appears to be undervalued - court may reject the same. However courts being courts of justice, who hate tripping people up on questions of procedure (which are nothing but mechanisms for facilitating justice). As per Proviso to O 7 R 11 - the court can grant time to the petitioner to make good the errors after recording reasons, and this time can further be extended by virtue of S.148 - for 30 days and even beyond that u/s 151 CPC.

In any case even if plaint is rejected - the plaintiff can file a new plaint on the same cause of action, hence no purpose is served to forfeit his fees, and make him file again, when the changes can be corrected in the same plaint by amendment. Hence it would be allowed. If the undervaluation was mala-fide and deliberate the court may still allow with costs.

ajay sethi (Expert) 05 March 2012
plaintiff can take out an application for amendment of plaint . court may allow application on payment of costs .

ajay sethi (Expert) 05 March 2012
Wasudhir Foundation v. C. Lal & Sons 45 (1991) DLT 556 where after adverting to a Division Bench judgment in Gaganmal Ramchand v. HSBC AIR 1950 Bombay 345 it was held that the Court may allow an Application for amendment of the plaint to prevent the plaint from being rejected though an Application for rejection of the same is pending.

The reasoning of thelearned Single Judge in support of his view is encapsulated in the following paragraph of the judgment: “This is the righteous path and, if this be so is it not necessary, in the ends of justice, to extend the beneficial legal principles ensconced in Order 6 rule 17 more so, when one hardly discerns anything in Order 7 rule 11 which may lead one to take the view that it takes away the power of the court to allow amendments of places hurdles in performance of its duty? After all what is the effect of Order 7 rule 11? It is, if I understand correctly, that the plaintiff would not be precluded from filing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. If he so desires see Order 7 Rule 13. If such be the effect, why not permit the amendment of the plaint so as to remove the defect and prevent the operation of the Rule? Why make him first invite the rejection of the plaint, then allow him to file a fresh suit at the expense of delay and heavy costs? Why not straightaway allow him to amend the plaint, remove the defect and permit him, thereby, to proceed with the same suit? Why this rigmarole? After all, procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of justice.”