Allegation Of Deliberately Enhancing Suit Valuation Insufficient For Case Transfer: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because a party alleges that the other side deliberately enhanced the valuation of the suit to ensure that the mattwrs comes out of jurisdiction of the concerned court is not sufficient ground to allege bias and seek transfer.

“Merely because one of the parties, in its pleadings (that too before a court other than the court where the subject suit is pending), alleges that the other side deliberately enhanced the valuation of the suit to ensure that the suit comes out of jurisdiction of the concerned trial court, it cannot be overstretched to mean that the party making such pleadings is confident of getting relief from the concerned trial court, that too to an extent of holding the apprehension of bias to be reasonable,” Justice Girish Kathpalia said.

The Court dismissed a plea filed by two individuals challenging an order passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, whereby their application seeking transfer of their civil suit against an entity from one court to another court was dismissed.

The petitioners did not raise any apprehension of bias against the concerned judicial officer from whose court the suit was sought to be transferred.

It was their case that their matter was not likely to get a favourable consideration from the judge as the other side weaved the ploy to enhance the valuation of the suit so that it would oust the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court and which lead to rehearing of the case by another judge.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Kathpalia said:

“In every case, where the amendment in valuation of the suit is opposed on the ground that plaintiff has done so only to pull out the suit from pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court, the plaintiff would claim it to be a cause to suspect that the defendant is resisting amendment as he is confident of getting relief from the same trial court. Such resistance would be endless. That would be absurd.”

The Court did not find the apprehension of bias as expressed by the petitioners to be a reasonable apprehension.

It added that the petition was preferred simply to protract the suit proceedings.

Justice Kathpalia rejected the plea saying that it was devoid of merit and was frivolous and imposed costs of Rs.10,000 on the petitioners to be deposited with DHCLSC.

Title: USHA DRAGER PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. DRAEGERWERK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & ORS

Click here to read order