Delhi High Court - Orders
Rohit Madan vs Aditya Madan And Ors on 10 October, 2022
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS (OS) NO. 129/2022 and I.As. 3596/2022, 3597/2022, 10239/2022
and 14713/2022
ROHIT MADAN ..... PLAINTIFF
Through: Mr. Akshay Ravi, Advocate.
versus
ADITYA MADAN AND ORS. ..... DEFENDANTS
Through: Mr. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 10.10.2022
1. A petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for permanent and mandatory injunction. According to paragraph 17 for the purpose of jurisdiction of the suit has been valued at Rs. 26 Crores for the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction by claiming that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. However, for the purpose of Court Fee, the relief for permanent and mandatory injunction has been valued at Rs. 200/-.
2. The relief sought in the suit by way of permanent and mandatory injunction is to restrain the defendants from making any changes in the property or from creating any third party interest in the suit property and for any other Orders. This court vide its Order dated 07.07.2022 had directed that the deficit Court Fee on the valuation amount be paid within one month. The plaintiff failed to pay the Court Fee within 1 month and the same is recorded in order dated 09.09.2022. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he was appearing on the said date for the first time. The matter was again listed for payment of the deficit Court Fee and for Settlement on 10.10.2022.
4. Today again, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that he is in the process of filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 to amend the plaint in respect of the valuation. It is also argued that the valuation in the suit was in respect of the suit property and not in respect of the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction as has been stated in the relevant paragraphs. It is argued that for the purpose of permanent and mandatory injunction, the valuation is of Rs. 200/- and the requisite Court Fee already stands paid and there is no deficit which is required to be paid. In any case, the plaintiff is in the process of amending the suit to make the requisite corrections in respect of the suit valuation.
5. Learned counsel on behalf of the defendant has vehemently opposed any further adjournment for payment of the deficit Court Fee by the plaintiff. It is submitted that an application bearing no. I.A. 14713/2022 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has been filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint.
6. The short question for consideration is whether the requisite Court Fee has been paid by the plaintiff. For this, one may refer to paragraph 17 of the plaint which deals with the jurisdiction and is reproduced as under:
17. That the suit property is vaiued at Rs. 26,00,00,000/-
(Rupees twenty six crores oniy) for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction and Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Hence, the present suit is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
7. The Court Fee has been mentioned in paragraph 19 and 20 which reads as under:
19. That the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Hence, as per the Court Fee Act 1870, the Plaintiff has paid appropriate court fee as per law.
20. That the suit is valued at Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only) for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction w.r.t the relief of restraining the defendants, their nominees, agents, attorneys, assigns, associates, legal heirs, representative, etc. from in any manner selling, alienating, creating any third party interests, right, title or interest in the estate, of Late Sh. CL Madan/iri the suit property.
8. It is quite evident from the perusal of paragraph 17 that the valuation for the purpose relief of permanent and mandatory injunction has been assessed at Rs. 26 Crores.
9. Section 15 of the CPC provides for the Courts in which the suit may be instituted. It reads as under: "Section 15 - Courts in which suits to be instituted -
Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it."
10. Competence means having jurisdiction to try. The jurisdiction has reference to (a) subject matter (b) pecuniary valuation and (c) territorial jurisdiction. This Section is a rule of procedure and not of jurisdiction and it does not therefore, oust the jurisdiction of the Court of higher grade who have concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. When a suit triable by a Court of a lower grade, is instituted in a Court of higher grade, the latter Court may return the plaint. It is only discretionary on the part of the latter Court. Section 15 of CPC is enacted not merely to avoid overcrowding but also for the convenience of the parties and the witnesses who may be examined by them. Where the relief claimed is of injunction which it is incapable of valuation, the plaintiff may put a notional value and the same should not be questioned by the Court on the ground that the valuation so affixed is to avoid payment of higher amount (P. Rama Rao v. Srikakulam Municipality AIR 1993 AP 255).
11. Section 7(iv)(d) of the Act provides for computation of fee payable in CS(OS) 58/2021 Page 4 of 9 certain suits. Section 7 of the Act provides for computation of fees payable in certain suits. Section 7(iv)(d) reads as under:
"7(iv) In suits ... For an injunction--(d) to obtain an injunction - according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal;" In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought"
12. In Padmavati Mahajan v. Yogender Mahajan and Anr. (2008) 152 DLT 363, it was observed that a suit for injunction could be valued by the plaintiff in his/ her discretion subject to the condition that such discretion ought not to be whimsical.
13. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1958 SC 245 observed that while Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act, 1870 gives an option to the plaintiff to determine the value of the relief claimed, but Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 provides that the value so determined by the plaintiff shall be the value for the purpose of jurisdiction and ad valorem Court Fee shall be payable on the same amount. It was observed that the computation of the Court fees in suits falling under Section 7(iv) depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claims. Once, the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of the Court fee that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for Court fee and the jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases, but it is the value for the Court fee as stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is this value which determines the jurisdiction and is the value on which the Court fee has to be paid.
14. In Smt. Sheila Devi and Ors v. Sh. Kishan Lal Kalra and Ors. 1974 SCC OnLine Del 136 referred to Sathappa Chettiar (Supra) and held that CS(OS) 58/2021 Page 6 of 9 Section 7(iv) of the Act, 1870 gives a right to the plaintiff in any of the suit mentioned in its various clauses to place any valuation that he likes on the relief he seeks, and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff's valuation.
15. In Shakuntala Rani v. Rajesh Bhatt (Deceased) through Lrs. 80 (1999) DLT 98 (DB), the Division Bench of this Court made a reference to the aforementioned judgements to conclude that it is not open for the Court to form its own opinion and substitute it with the plaintiff's opinion that the suit ought to be valued at a certain value different from that which has been put by the plaintiff, unless it is shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Once it is not demonstrated that the valuation has been done arbitrarily or there is a deliberate under-estimation of the reliefs, the Court must not interfere in such fixation of the valuation.
16. In the present case, the plaintiff had tried to argue that it was the value of the property that was affixed as 26Crores and not the relief of injuction, however, paragraph 17 of the plaint, as referred above clearly demonstrates that the valuation of relief of injunction is Rs.26 Crores while for the purpose of Court fee, they are assessed at Rs. 200/-. The Court Fes is necessarily payable on the suit valuation in terms of Section 5.8 of the Suit Valuation Act. Any subsequent application for amendment cannot cure this inherent defect especially when objection has been taken by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
17. Since, the plaintiff has failed to make good the deficit Court Fee despite specific directions and time given by this Court, the suit is hereby rejected.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J OCTOBER 10, 2022/PA