Delhi District Court
Ram Kumar Kapur vs Bhushan Kumar Kapur And Ors on 17 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. HASAN ANZAR, ADJ-06
WEST DISTRICT,TIS HAZARI COURTS
CS No. 11536/16
Ram Kumar Kapur
..........Plaintiff
Versus
Bhushan Kumar Kapur and Ors.
..........Defendants
Date of Order: 17.09.2019
ORDER
1. Defendant has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of payment of deficient court fees.
2. Plaintiff has filed the suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants stating that the suit property is left behind by Smt Ved Kaur Kapur and Late Sh Govind Ram Kapur who died in the year 1992 and 1995 respectively.
3. Plaintiff as per valuation made by him has valued the suit for Rs. 50,04,000/-. As per plaintiff, he is required to pay the stamp duty of Rs. 2,04,000/-.
CS No.11536/16 Ram Kumar Kapur Vs. Bhushan Kumar Kapur & Ors. Page no. 1 /5
4. It appears that plaintiff has calculated the payable court fees as Rs. 2,04,000/- as per Court Fees (Delhi Amended) Act, 2012 which was later on held to be unconstitutional by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Delhi High Courts Bar Association Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, W.P (C) 4770/2012 dated 09.10.2013. Since plaintiff has valued the plaint for Rs. 50,04,000/-. Therefore the plaintiff has to pay the court fees as per the Court Fees Act, 1870 on the old rates which is Rs. 44,944/-. However, plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs. 13,250/- + Rs. 750/- i.e. Rs. 14,000/- as Court fees.
5. Plaintiff has initially filed the present suit under the provisions of Order 33 CPC pursuant to which SDM was also directed to furnish the status report in respect of financial status of plaintiff. SDM in compliance of order has filed the financial status report of the plaintiff. As per the status report, plaintiff is an owner of MIG, DDA Flat, A-73, Malviya Nagar and other income of plaintiff was also mentioned. It was also mentioned that plaintiff is also in the possession of a Maruti Car and other account details of plaintiff was mentioned vide report dated 17.10.2014.
6. On 10.01.2017, statement of plaintiff was recorded in which it has been admitted by plaintiff that he has a Maruti Car bearing no. DL 3CB J 5476 however, the amount was paid by the son CS No.11536/16 Ram Kumar Kapur Vs. Bhushan Kumar Kapur & Ors. Page no. 2 /5 of plaintiff. Plaintiff has also stated that his wife is the owner of firm called Topaz International and his son is the CEO of Topaz International. Plaintiff has admitted that property no. 315-A, 3 rd floor, Vardhman Tower, Preet Vihar, Delhi is in his possession. It is submitted that the said firm carries out business of sale of Inverters etc. Plaintiff has also stated that he is having one credit card, each issued by HDFC, HSBC and Citi Bank. Plaintiff has also stated that prior to filing of present suit/petition, a suit was dismissed in the year 2013. Plaintiff has also admitted that he has an insurance policy whose premium is Rs. 15,000/-.
7. Thereafter, on 28.02.2018, a statement was made on behalf of plaintiff that he is ready and willing to pay the deficient court fees.
8. On 02.06.2018, one application was filed on behalf of plaintiff that he has paid the complete court fees of Rs. 14,000/-. On 24.09.2018, it was submitted on behalf of plaintiff that he will file the court fees within a period of one month in terms of submission as made on 28.02.2018. On 30.10.2018, plaintiff filed further court fees of Rs.13,250/-.
9. On 02.11.2018, it was submitted on behalf of defendant no.1 and 2 that court fees as filed by plaintiff is still deficient and thereafter on 28.11.2018, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC CS No.11536/16 Ram Kumar Kapur Vs. Bhushan Kumar Kapur & Ors. Page no. 3 /5 was moved on behalf of defendant no.1 and 2 for rejection of the plaint . It has been submitted on behalf of defendants that plaintiff has valued his 1/4th share on Rs. 50,00,000/- and has calculated the court fees payable at Rs. 2,00,000/- whereas the actual market value of the suit property as per the circle rate is Rs. 1,60,000/- per sq meter and the area of the land of the suit property is approx is Rs. 3,84,00,000/- and therefore the plaintiff share would be atleast Rs. 98,00,000/- and he is liable to pay the court fees as per circle rate. On 20.04.2019, certain clarifications were asked from plaintiff as to whether he is willing to pay the court fees as per the current rate however, neither plaintiff nor counsel for plaintiff replied.
10. I have heard ld counsel for parties and on some dates plaintiff too and perused the material on record.
11. Vide order dated 28.02.2018, application under Order 33 CPC has been withdrawn by the plaintiff and a statement was made on behalf of plaintiff that he would pay the court fees on the value as put by him on the plaint. Plaintiff has valued the suit for Rs. 50,04,000/- as per his own assessment he was liable to pay Rs. 2,04,000/- however, the calculation for payment of court fees was based on the Delhi Amendment Act and the plaintiff was only required to pay court fees of Rs. 44,944/-.
CS No.11536/16 Ram Kumar Kapur Vs. Bhushan Kumar Kapur & Ors. Page no. 4 /5
12. Sufficient opportunities were already provided to the plaintiff to pay the court fees as per valuation made by him in the plaint in terms of order dated 28.02.2018. But the court fees was never filed by the plaintiff despite having means to file the same and furthermore, application under Order 33 CPC having already been withdrawn by the plaintiff on 28.02.2018 therefore plaintiff is required to pay the court fees as per valuation made by him.
13. Plaintiff has only filed the total court fees of Rs. 14,000/- against Rs. 44,944/- which is deficient and again opportunity was also provided on 20.04.2019 whether plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the court fees on the current rate but plaintiff did not avail the said opportunity and matter was kept for further proceedings.
14. Since plaintiff has failed to pay the court fees on the valuation made by him in the plaint despite sufficient opportunities, therefore the plaint filed by plaintiff is rejected under order 7 Rule 11
(b) CPC.
File be consigned to record room as per rules.
Announced in the Open Court
on 17.09.2019 (Hasan Anzar)
Additional District Judge-06
West District, THC
CS No.11536/16 Ram Kumar Kapur Vs. Bhushan Kumar Kapur & Ors. Page no. 5 /5