Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Whether the Suit is barred in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

18. The plaintiffs have prayed for a decree of declaration declaring that the communication dated 22nd August, 2005 sent by the defendants to the plaintiffs repudiating the settlement which had taken place between the parties and any action taken thereupon, is wholly illegal, void, malafide, vitiated by falsehood and fraud. This prayer of the plaintiffs has to be examined in light of the averments made in the plaint and the undisputed facts on record emerging from the documents filed by the plaintiff itself. The factum of taking loan, disbursement, default and certain other disputes arising between the parties in relation to repayment, finally led to the filing of an application under Section 20 of the DRT Act. The final order dated 25th August, 2005 was passed under the provisions of DRT Act for recovery of Rs. 26,75,98,861.00 against which the plaintiff has already filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which is stated to be pending. During the pendency of these proceedings the parties exchanged certain correspondence where after at Delhi, the plaintiff had discussed the matter with defendant no.2, against whom serious malafides are alleged, but later had appeared before the Independent Settlement Advisory Committee (high-powered Committee, at Delhi). As per the letters placed on record by the plaintiff they had initially proposed to bring a full and final settlement of the dues of the bank by paying a sum of Rs. 22 crores and had annexed a cheque for Rs. 2 crores. Subsequently, the amount was raised to Rs. 24 crores and a bank draft of Rs. 1 crore was sent to the bank. This bank draft has admittedly been encashed. According to the bank, and as is clear from the letter dated 22nd August, 2005, the amount was kept under " no lien account" with the bank. Vide this letter itself, it was stated that the offer made by the plaintiffs vide letter dated 5th July, 2005 and 23rd July, 2005 was not acceptable to the bank. The contention on behalf of the defendants is that the plaintiffs have failed to claim any consequential relief and the suit simplicitor for declaration challenging the legality of the said letter dated 22nd August, 2005 would be hit by the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The provisions of the said Section reads as under:-

27. While examining this issue, the Court has to read the plaint of the plaintiff as a whole and then find out as to what relief is being claimed and what is the intent of the plaintiff. If the plaintiffs in the garb of the relief of declaration or injunction simplicitor is in fact, claiming a much greater relief, then the liability to pay the court fee would be relatable to such a claimed relief. Wherever the fixation of court fee is patently arbitrary, is not in conformity with the provisions of the Court Fee Act and The Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and is intended to claim a substantive relief (of the nature to prevent recovery of money) in the garb of a relief for simplicitor injunction and is an attempt to choose the forum for litigating, without any rationale basis, in that event objection of a defendant in regard to payment of ad valorem court fee would have to be examined by the court. If any of the above questions are answered against the plaintiffs, the obvious result would be direction of payment of appropriate court fee to the plaintiffs.

28. In the present case, there is no doubt that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has already passed an order for recovery of Rs. 26,75,98,861.00 against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim to have entered into a settlement vide letter dated 23rd July, 2005, where an amount of Rs. 24 crores is stated to be the amount for settlement and the plaintiffs have paid the fixed court fee making his cause of action on the basis of the letter dated 22nd August, 2005 wherein the bank refused to accept the request of the plaintiffs for settlement of the entire matter for a total sum of Rs. 24 crores. The obvious attempt on the part of the plaintiffs is to stop the recovery in furtherance to the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and enforce the letter dated 23rd July, 2005, which is stated to be the settlement, settling the claim of the bank for a sum of Rs. 24 crores. In any event the subject matter of the suit relates to the said letter which is for settlement for a sum of Rs. 24 crores. As such the plaintiffs are trying to settle their accounts and are wanting to invoke the agreement which according to the plaintiffs is a concluded contract, and they are to pay the court fee, which is the ad valorem court fee, ex facie payable on such documents. By praying for injunction of a letter declining such a request on the basis that there is a binding contract founded on the principle of estoppel, what the plaintiff prays is enforcement of a contract which is for a consideration of Rs. 24 crores. It is not a case of claiming the relief of declaration simplicitor, but in substance, is to enforce the agreement alleged to have been entered into between the parties and prevent the bank from acting in furtherance to the order of recovery as well as for the letter dated 22nd August, 2005 to be declared void and malafide, thus, enforcing the settlement dated 23rd July, 2005, which of course has to be examined on its own merits during the course of the trial. But the obligation on the part of the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee is an irresistible conclusion on the basis of the judgments afore-stated. Judgment in the case of Shamsher Singh (supra) has been correctly relied upon by the counsel appearing for the defendants. In that case the Supreme Court took the view that a suit by a son against his father and the mortgagee /decree holder for a declaration that the mortgage executed by the father in respect of the joint family property was null and void for want of legal necessity and consideration, though couched in a declaratory form, is in substance a suit either for setting aside the decree or for a declaration with consequential relief of injunction and as such the court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) payable is ad valorem. The Court also took the view that the court while 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 and 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.

32. Any objection which has been raised in regard to the very maintainability of the suit by the defendants is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 18 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act. The attempt on the part of the plaintiff is to over-reach an order of recovery already passed by the authorities under the provisions of the Act.

33. The Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, while relying upon the judgments in the cases of J.V. Vinnisami Thever and Ors. v. J.V.R. Chellasami Thevar and Ors. AIR 1921 Madras 47; Abhay Chand Ram Chand v. Ram Chand Wazir Chand and Ors. 1966 Punjab 526; Ganga Ram v. Shiv Lal 1964 Punjab 260 (267) contended that the bar as contained in proviso to Section 42 (now Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act) is not attracted in the present case as there is no occasion for the applicant to claim any consequential or further relief except declaration prayed for in relation to the letter dated 23rd July, 2005. The proviso to Section 34 would not apply as the further disputes thereto would fall within the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act. The provisions of Section 34 of the Act makes its obligatory upon the plaintiffs to claim further and complete relief and provides for a bar that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiffs being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title omits to do so. Once a statute specifies as to how the suit is to be instituted and that it must contain complete relief including the further relief which a party is required to pray, then there will be no escape from compliance to such procedure. The provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act are mandatory and cannot be left to the discretion of a party. In the present case, the real intent of filing the present suit is to bind the bank vide settlement dated 23rd July, 2005 and prevent the recovery of the amounts claimed by the bank in furtherance to the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dated 25th August, 2005. The relief simplicitor of declaration in relation to the letter dated 22nd August, 2005 is hardly a composite or complete relief. The plaintiffs have to claim a further relief of injunction restraining the defendants from making any other recoveries except as prayed, its settlement or a specific relief in regard to enforcement of the agreement dated 23rd July, 2005. The animus of the plaintiff is primarily to prevent recovery, which otherwise is in furtherance to the orders of the DRT. The other relief could be with regard to enforcement of the agreement dated 23rd July, 2005 wherein the claim is sought to be settled for a sum of Rs. 24 crores. In either of the situations, the plaintiffs have failed to ask for a further and necessary relief which he ought to ask in order to complete his remedy in the suit and for proper adjudication of the matters in issue.