Gujarat State Petronet Ltd v. A K Vijay Kumar
$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 45/2016 & C.M. No.11687-88/2016 GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Aspi Kapadia, Mr. Piyush Joshi, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari and Ms. Sumiti Yadav, Advs.
Versus
A K VIJAY KUMAR ..... Respondent Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R
% 30.03.2016 The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.03.2016 wherein orders were passed on the two pending applications filed by the petitioner and the defendant respectively. The order in fact reflects that both these applications were kept in abeyance and the next date renotified was 05.04.2016. The petitioner is aggrieved with that part of the order wherein the plaintiff had been directed to rectify the valuation clause as also the prayer clause; submission being that the order is clear and if the prayer clause is permitted to be amended, the petitioner/defendant knows the fate of his application (under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC) which would be a rejection. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that even otherwise such an order could not have been passed and to support this
submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgments reported as (1976) ILR 2 Delhi 745 Hans Raj Kalra Vs. Kishan Lal Kalra & Others, 1998 VII AD (Delhi) 325 Anil Goel Vs. Sardari Lal as also (2008) ILR 9 Delhi 20 Archie Comic Publications Vs. Purple Creations Pvt. Ltd. & Others. Submission being reiterated that if a Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try a case, no amendment can be permitted to bring the case within its jurisdiction. Record discloses that the suit filed by the plaintiff/non-applicant and which is pending in the Trial Court is a suit for recovery of money. The contention of the petitioner is that this suit was valued at approximately Rs.2,17,91,391.80 as is apparent from a reading of the prayer clause (although the figures have not been given in the prayer clause).
Further submission being that this fact having brought to the notice of the Court by way of an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC for return of the plaint, the plaintiff forthwith thereafter moved an application seeking an amendment of his plaint (under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC); his submission was that these are typographical errors and calculation mistakes.
The Trial Court had adjudicated upon these applications in piecemeal. It had noted that the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.61,80,000/- (for relief of recovery of salary of Rs.31,80,000/- + Rs. 10 lacs X 3 for damages), Rs.200/- for the relief of declaration, Rs.130/- for permanent injunction and requisite court fee had been paid with an undertaking to pay further Court fee as and when directed by the Court. In the prayer clause however, the petitioner had sought reliefs which were to the following effect:-
"a.
Pass a decree of declaration in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant thereby declaring the retirement date of plaintiff as 30.11.2015. b.
Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from recovering an amount of Rs.25,45,683/- from plaintiff in lieu of salary drawn by plaintiff from 30.11.2014 to 23.06.2015 as the plaintiff has worked in this period. c.
Pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for paying the salary amount to equivalent to about 6 months i.e. from 23.06.2015 to 30.11.2015 along with interest @ 18% per annum.
d.` Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing the defendants to release the retirement benefits including EPF, gratuity, leave encashment, superannuating benefits which are approximately over and above Rs.1.25 crore and all consequential benefits which the plaintiff is entitled to.
d Pass a decree of damages in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1, 2 & 3 for harassment, mential torture, pecuniary loss caused by defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to plaintiff and f.
Pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby injuncting the defendants from recovering an amount of Rs.3,14,793.80 from plaintiff in lieu of buy back of vehicle No. DL 9C AV 6666 as per OYVS policy. g.
Pass the direction to defendants for immediately providing requirement of RTO in original and not in duplicate for facilitating proper transfer of vehicle in the name of plaintiff.
h.
Any such other and further reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. "
The Court had correctly noted that there appears to be discrepancy in the valuation clause and the prayer clause and considering the joint impact of both the applications pending before it (under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC filed by the defendant and under
Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the plaintiff) it had directed the plaintiff to rectify the valuation clause to bring it in consonance with the prayer clause and to pay the requisite Court fee; this was in view of the submission made by the plaintiff in his application that these were calculation mistakes.
The final orders on the applications under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC and under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC are yet in abeyance. This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order. It is an interim direction which has been given by the Court keeping both the applications alive and final orders on the said applications are still to be passed. The background relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner have no bearing about the factual matrix of the instance case. There is no doubt to the settled proposition that if the Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try a suit, any order passed by that court would be non-est and the order permitting an amendment in such a situation may also not be legal.
However, in the instant case, the Court had noted that the prayer clause had claimed reliefs which were not cosupportive of the valuation given in the valuation clause (para 21 of the plaint); this was noted to be a calculation mistake. At the cost of repetition, final orders on the applications are yet to be passed. The impugned order, in this background, suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.