Mr. Mahesh vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board on 23 September, 2013
"A plain reading of paragraph (iv) of Section 7 shows that it requires
the plaintiff in any of the suits mentioned in the various clauses
thereof to state the amount at which "he values the relief sought",
and the amount of courtfee payable to be computed according
to the said amount at which "the relief sought is valued" in the
plaint. It is implicit in it, and it is also not disputed, that the
paragraph requires the plaintiff himself to value the relief he seeks.
The only question for consideration is whether the plaintiff has the
right to place any valuation that he likes. The paragraph does not
by itself impose any restriction or condition as regards the valuation
by the plaintiff. When the statutory provision itself has not imposed
any such restriction or condition, it would not be proper, in our
opinion, for a Court to introduce such a restriction or condition into
the section. The plain language of the provision gives an
unrestricted choice to the plaintiff to value the relief. It would not,
therefore, be proper for a Court to say that the relief was
undervalued and to correct the said valuation invoking the general
power mentioned in Order Vii Rule ll(b) or the inherent power saved
by Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provision in
paragraph (iv) of Section 7 of the Courtfees Act which gives a free
hand to the plaintiff to place any valuation that he likes and does
not place/any restriction or condition has, in our opinion, so far as
the suits mentioned in that paragraph are concerned, the effect of
taking away the general power of the Court under Order Vii Rule
11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the inherent power to
8/19 Mahesh Vs. D. U. S. I. B. Suit no.224/11
correct an undervaluation. The general power and the inherent
power stand modified by the special statutory provision in Section
7(iv) of the Courtfees Act. In other words, in, our opinion,
paragraph (iv) of Section 7 of the Courtfees Act gives a right to the
plaintiff to place any valuation that he likes on the relief he seeks,
and the Court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff's
valuation. This view is quite in conformity with the nature of the suits
mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of paragraph (iv) of Section 7. All the
said suits are such that it is not possible for the plaintiff to specify the
precise value of the relief he seeks in each of the said suits. A
perusal of the various clauses (a) to (f) shows the same. That was
why the legislature obviously thought it fit to leave to the plaintiff to
place any valuation the likes on the relief he seeks in such suits. It
was sought to be argued that the aforesaid view would permit the
plaintiff to place any arbitrary or fanciful value on the relief he
seeks."