Manmohan Muttappa Attavar, N. Krishna ... vs Harendra Sakarlal Parikh, Mrs. Martha ... on 25 March, 2003
This is the matter between Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh v. Paras Nath Singh and Ors. After having gone through the said decision, it is clear that the apex Court has also made it clear that it is substance of relief sought that is important while deciding the jurisdiction of the court so far as regards pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned and not the form of the suit. The Supreme Court has specifically observed, the Court has to begin with assumption that averments in the plaint are correct, but can interfere with an arbitrary valuation having no basis at all. Defence by the opponents may or may not be relevant for such valuation. The facts in the above said case related to a partition matter between the members of the family wherein on the basis of objection by the defendants therein, the Court had passed an order directing the plaintiff for payment of court fees appropriately in view of the objection. The matter had gone to the High Court by way of revision at the instance of the original plaintiff. The High Court dismissed the same. The matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. While remanding the matter to the High Court, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the High Court did not take into consideration the real question which was for consideration before the Court i.e. whether the suit was properly valued and proper court fees have been paid. While remanding the matter certain observations were made by the Supreme Court which are to be borne in mind while deciding such matters. No doubt, Court fee has to be paid on the plaint as framed and not on the plaint as it ought to have been framed unless by astuteness employed in drafting the plaint, the plaintiff has attempted to evade payment of court fee or unless there is a provision of law requiring the plaintiff to value the suit and pay the court fee in a manner other than the one adopted by the plaintiff. The Court shall begin with an assumption, for the purpose of determining the court fees payable on plaint, that the averments made therein by the plaintiff are correct. Yet, an arbitrary valuation of the suit property having no basis at all for such valuation and made so as to evade payment of court fees fixed for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on some court which it does not have, or depriving the court of jurisdiction which it would otherwise have, can also be interfered with by the court. It is the substance of the relief sought for and not the form which will be determinative of the valuation and payable court fees. Keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court, Mr. Parikh contended that it is the plaint which will determine the valuation of the suit and unless it is shown that the valuation was not correct for any reason, only then it is open for the Court to interfere in the same. Mr. Parikh contended that there could not be exact valuation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, particularly when the accounts were yet to be struck and balance was yet to be drawn to state the exact amount of share of the partners. Mr. Parikh, therefore, contended that it was not possible and it could not have been expected from the plaintiff to have valued the suit to a particular amount, when the accounts are yet to be rendered. Argument of Mr. Parikh based on the judgments cited by him, no doubt, per so, is appealable. This Court may even observe that this proposition cannot be disputed, however, if the observations made by the Supreme Court in the above said judgment are minutely read, it in an unambiguous manner suggests that yet it is open for the court to deal with the point at the very initial stage to find out whether the valuation is made capriciously in such manner so as to evade the payment of court fees at the initial stage itself. At the cost of repetition, this court would observe that very contents of the plaint itself are so clear that the plaintiff if would have brought the suit with appropriate care, would have himself reached to a conclusion that the valuation made by him was not correct. Let apart the exact calculation of 7.5% share but amount which according to him was to be recovered from the firm or which according to him he was liable to receive from the firm even that amount if taken together would readily oust the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bombay where the suit is filed. I have no slightest doubt in my mind, about the incorrect valuation made by the plaintiff in the present case, may be for the reasons best known to himself.