Mere change of forum is not a prejudice within meaning of Section 11 of Suits Valuation Act.

42. In the case of Kiran Singh & ors v. Chaman Paswan 

& ors, reported in AIR 1954 SC 340. The question involved was 

whether the judgment delivered by the District Court in appeal 

should be treated as a nullity in view of the valuation of the suit 

which is ultimately determined. The Apex Court took into 

consideration the provisions of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation 

Act, and Sections 21 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Code and it 

has been held that the policy underlines Sections 21 and 99 of the 

Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act. In 

paras 12 and 15 of the said decision, it is held that a mere change 

of forum is not a prejudice within the meaning of Section 11 of the 

Suits Valuation Act.

It has been held that the words “unless the 

over-valuation or under-valuation thereon has prejudicially 

affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits” clearly 

show that the decrees passed in such cases are liable to be 

interfered with by the Appellate Court not in all cases as a matter 

of course but only if prejudice such as is mentioned in the said 

Section results and prejudice envisaged by that Section, therefore, 

must be something other than an appeal being heard in a different 

forum. The Apex Court has clearly opined that prejudice 

contemplated by the Section is something different from the fact 

of appeal having been heard in a forum, which would not have 

been competent to hear it on the correct valuation of the suit as 

ultimately determined. The Court has held that the jurisdiction 

that is conferred on the Appellate Courts under Section 11 is an 

equitable one to be exercised when there has been an erroneous 

assumption of jurisdiction by a subordinate Court as a result of 

over-valuation or under-valuation and as consequential failure of 

justice. The Court has held that it is neither possible nor even 

desirable to define such a jurisdiction closely or confine it within 

the stated bounds. It can only be predicated of it that it is in the 

nature of a revisional jurisdiction to be exercised with caution and 

for ends of justice whenever the facts and situation call for it. It 

has been held that where there has been a prejudice or not, is 

accordingly a matter to be determined on facts of each case. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.722 OF 2013

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.5775 OF 2012

AND

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.482 OF 2012

WRIT PETITION NO.722 OF 2013

Walchandnagar Industries Limited, Vs  Indraprastha Developers,

Dated : 25-9-2013

Citation;2014(2) ALLMR 550

Link to the judgement is : http://bit.ly/1i4ougF

Print Page