Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Naman Grah Niram Sahakari Sanstha ... vs Nitu on 27 January, 2016
-1-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. SHARMA
W.P. No. 7799/2014
Anjali Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit
Vs.
Naveen & Others
W.P. No. 7817/2014
Shri Naman Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit
Vs.
Surendra Singh & Others
W.P. No. 7820/2014
Adarsh Vikram Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit
Vs.
Hariram Verma & Others
W.P. No. 7821/2014
Adarsh Vikram Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit
Vs.
Chintaman & Others
W.P. No. 5863/2014
Shri Naman Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit
Vs.
Smt. Gayatri & Others
W.P. No. 5866/2014
Shri Naman Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit
Vs.
Sharad Sharma & Others
-2-
W.P. No. 5862/2014
Shri Naman Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit
Vs.
Smt. Ninu Agrawal & Others
O R D E R
(Delivered on this 27th January, 2016) Regard being had to the similar controversy involved in above cases, they have been heard analogously together with the consent of the parties and a common order is being passed in the matter. Facts of W.P. No. 7799/2014 are narrated as under:-
1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12/09/2014 passed by the learned 3rd ADJ, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 02-
A/13 Anjali Grah Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit vs Naveen and Others.
2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the plaintiff has filed civil suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and for possession of the property in question and an objection was raised by the defendants in respect of court fees. It was stated by the defendants that because relief of recovery of possession has been sought, the plaintiff has not valued the property properly and is required to pay the velorem court fees as disputed land is situated in residential area and the total value is crossing more than 10 crores of rupees.
-3-3. A preliminary issue was framed by the learned trial Judge and the same has been decided in favour of the defendants directing the plaintiff to value the suit for recovery of the possession and to pay volerom court fee as per the market value of the land.
4. Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued before this Court that the value of the suit has rightly been done, keeping in view the value of the property reflected in the sale deed and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is bad in law. He has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Polamresetti Manikyam & Anr. V/s. Teegala Venkata Ramayya & Anr reported in 2014 AIR SCW 1345 and his contention is that in light of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, court fee has rightly been paid, keeping in view the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, hence, the order deserves to be set aside.
5. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Rajkumar vs. Savitri Devi reported in 2010 V-1 MPHT 121 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has taken a similar view.
6. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgments. In the aforesaid judgments, the suit was only for cancellation of sale deeds. In the judgments relied upon, it has nowhere been stated that the suit is also -4- relating to possession of the property in question. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff is not only seeking cancellation of sale but a relief for grant of possession is also in existence. In respect of suits falling under Clause IV of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act irrespective of various sub-clauses thereof the estimation of the relief by the plaintiff has to be ordinarily accepted. Nevertheless the plaintiff has not been given any absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on such relief and where he manifestedly and deliberately under values and under estimates the same, the Court cannot be a silent spectator and thus have a jurisdiction to interfere and the trial Court has rightly interfered in the matter, keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Kamleshwar Kishore Singh vs. Paras Nath Singh reported in AIR SCC 233.
7. This Court has also carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment delivered in the case of Kamleshwar Kishore Singh vs. Paras Nath Singh and is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is in consonance with the statutory provisions governing the field, especially keeping in view the fact that the relief of possession has also been claimed in the civil suit. The order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any perversity nor any jurisdictional error has been committed.
-5-The apex court in the case of Shalini_Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 in paragraph 49 held as under:-
"49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:
(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article
227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.
(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of their authority'.
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.
(i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.
(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under -6- Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.
(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court.
(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above.
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality."
In light of the aforesaid judgment as no patent illegality has been committed by the trial court and the order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 12/09/2014.
With the aforesaid, the admission is declined.
No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.C.Sharma) Judge karuna