Delhi High Court
S.M. Gulati vs Dream Land House And Anr. on 20 October, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(31)DRJ576
JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, J.
1. The Registry has put up objection that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and proper court fee has not been paid on the plaint. Bawa Shiv Charan Singh, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, has argued that the proper court fee has been paid on the plaint. Paragraph-11 of the plaint deals with the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. For the relief of declaration the suit is valued at Rs. 200/- on which the court fee of Rs. 20/- has been paid. For the relief of mandatory injunction the suit is valued at Rs. 130/- and Rs. 13 has been paid as court fee. For the relief of prohibitory injunction the suit is valued at Rs. 130/- and court fee of Rs. 13/- has been paid on the plaint thereby totalling court fee of Rs. 46/-.
2. For the purposes of jurisdiction and for the relief of declaration, the suit has been valued at Rs. 6 lakhs, obviously to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that in terms of Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, he can value the relief to obtain a declaration for which he has valued the relief at Rs. 200/-. He has further contended that Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 provides that the court fee to be paid for the purposes of relief as well as jurisdiction has to be the same but exceptions have been made to this general Rule in view of the amendment in the Rules by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules which are adopted by this Court. In his support he has cited Rule-7 of the said Rules which reads as under I -
"Suits in which the plaintiff in plaint asks for a mere declaration without any consequential relief in respect of property other than land assessed to land revenue.
Value- (a) For the purposes of the Court-fees Act, 1887, as determined by that Act.
(b) For the purposes of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - the market value of the property in dispute at the date of institution of the suit, subject to the provisions of Part I of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the rules in force under the said Part, so far as those provisions are applicable."
3. On the basis of the aforesaid Rule, learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that he can maintain his suit in this Court if subsequently after the evidence or otherwise this Court reaches to the conclusion that the suit is under-valued, the plaintiff will be entitled to have the value revised for the purposes of jurisdiction. Another arguments, which has been advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff, is that except in terms of Sub-section (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act where the value of the subject- matter has to be taken into consideration for fixing the court fee, this case would squarely fall outside the purview of Sub-section (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act as the suit is not for possession of land, houses and gardens. In support of his arguments, he has also cited . There is no dispute with the proposition of law that in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act read with the Suits Valuation Act and taking into consideration the Rules framed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and adopted by this Court in suits covered by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, which are with reference to any property, proviso will apply only if the valuation of the suit can be made in the manner provided by Sub-section (v) of Section 7 of the said Act.
4. However, in the case before me, Rule-7 and the operating part of the Rule-7 makes it abundantly clear that in a suit where the plaintiff ask for mere declaration without any consequential relief in respect of property, the value for the purposes of court fee has to be in terms of the Court Fees Act. Admittedly, learned counsel for the plaintiff has stated that at the bar that it is not a suit simplicitor for declaration but a suit with consequential relief of mandatory as well as prohibitory injunctions and the relief of injunction is dependent on the relief of declaration. That being the situation, it is not open for the plaintiff to give two valuations one for the purposes of declaration and other for the purposes of jurisdiction. There is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that as the consequential relief is not in relation to the property but in relation to the rights of the tenancy, therefore, he can take advantage of putting different valuation for jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in the case of Shamsher Singh v.
Rajinder Prashad and Ors. held as under I -
"While the court fee payable on a plaint is certainly to be decided on the basis of the allegations and the prayer in the plaint and the question whether the plaintiff's suit will have to fail for failure to ask for consequential relief is of no concern to the court at that stage, the court in deciding the question of court fee should look into the allegations in the plaint to see what is the substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the court looking at the substance of the relief asked for."
5. To allow the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case that he may be permitted to maintain different valuations for the relief of declaration and jurisdiction is demonstratively arbitrary and manifestly illegal.
6. The Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the valuation of the suit for the relief of rendition of accounts in the case of Abdul Hamid Shamsi v.
Abdul Majid and Ors. and rejected the plaint forthwith on the ground that valuation of relief by the plaintiff was whimsical and arbitrary. However, I will opt out another course instead of rejecting the plaint in exercise of provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, grant an opportunity to the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in the court fee within a period of one week, failing thereby the plaint shall be rejected.