Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
B.P. Naagar and Others – Appellants
Versus
Raj Pal Sharma – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4717 of 2023, SLP (C) No. 5812 of 2020
Decided On : 28-07-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Court Fees Act, 1870 – Section 7 – Suits Valuation Act, 1887 – Section 8 – Rejection of plaint – What exactly was amendment sought for and permitted by High Court is not discernible from impugned order – Amendment sought for and going by the same, values for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction are same – Case of plaintiff/respondent herein did not fall in any of carved out exceptions in Section 7 of Court Fees Act – It is an eminently fit case where Court should remand the matter for fresh consideration by High Court – Ordered accordingly. (Paras 13, 17 and 20)
Facts of the case:
In the application filed under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, praying for rejection of the plaint before Trial Court it was contended by 5th defendant/second appellant herein that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and proper Court fee was not paid. Impugned order of the High Court would reveal that the sole reason assigned therein is actually founded on law regarding the requirement or otherwise to pay ad valorem Court fee by a non-party to a sale deed in respect of which a declaration is sought by him.
Findings of Court:
Whether court of Additional District Judge-II, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi could proceed to frame the issues and adjudicate them, thereafter.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
A suit that has not been properly valued and for which the correct court fee has not been paid can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) (!) (!) .
The scope of the amendment sought and permitted by the High Court was not clearly discernible from the impugned order, but it involved the valuation of the suit for court fee purposes and the deletion of certain prayers from the plaint (!) .
The core issue in the case revolves around whether the suit was properly valued for court fee and jurisdictional purposes, and whether the plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem court fees, especially when not a party to the sale deed in question (!) .
The original suit was for declaration and cancellation of certain deeds, with the valuation initially set at a high amount, requiring ad valorem court fee. The defendant challenged this valuation, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (!) .
The Trial Court initially found that the suit was not properly valued and that proper court fee was not paid, but it granted time to the plaintiff to revalue and pay the correct fee. Subsequent applications for amendment and rejection of the plaint were filed and decided, with the plaint ultimately being rejected (!) (!) .
The High Court's intervention was based on the legal question of whether the suit was properly valued and whether the order rejecting the plaint was a decree subject to appeal. The High Court allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint and directed further proceedings, including framing an issue on valuation (!) (!) .
The impugned order by the High Court effectively permitted the plaintiff to amend the valuation, which impacted the legal status of the rejection of the plaint. However, the precise nature of the permitted amendment and its legal consequences were not explicitly clear from the order (!) .
The case involved complex legal questions regarding the valuation of suits, the payment of court fees, and the procedural rights of parties to challenge orders under the relevant statutes. The appellate court ultimately remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the High Court to address these issues properly (!) (!) .
The appellate court emphasized the importance of a clear legal process and directed the High Court to dispose of the matter within a specified time frame, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case (!) .
Overall, the case highlights the significance of proper suit valuation, adherence to procedural requirements for court fee payments, and the appropriate legal remedies available for parties contesting orders related to plaint rejection and valuation issues.
JUDGMENT :
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Leave granted.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the final order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi, whereby it allowed C.M. (M) No. 686 of 2019 and C.M. (App.) No. 20889 of 2019 and set aside the orders dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Central Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi. The Defendant Nos. 5 to 9 in the suit are the appellants herein and the plaintiff therein is the respondent herein. It is to be noted that Annexure P-14, Memorandum of Writ Petition, which culminated in the impugned order, would reveal that it was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), challenging the orders dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019. Considering the rival contentions, it is only apposite to refer to the orders dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019 passed by the Trial Court to know their nature for an appropriate disposal of this appeal.
2. Order dated 01.07.2017 passed by the Trial Court in CS(OS) No. 612960/2016, exhibited as Annexure P-7 in the captioned appeal, would reveal that it was an order passed in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, moved on behalf of defendant No. 5/ the second appellant in the captioned appeal. In fact, the suit was originally filed by the respondent herein before the High Court viz. C.S. (OS) No. 809/2011 for declaration and cancellation of the gift deed dated 27.04.2010 and sale deed dated 10.01.2011 and also for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. Originally prayers (a) to (e) were sought for in the plaint. However, vide order dated 20.05.2015, the plaintiff/the respondent herein was permitted by the High Court to abandon prayers (c) and (d) made in the plaint and thus, the suit was pursued qua prayers in (a), (b) and (e) only. Later, it was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Central, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi pursuant to the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. In the context of the contentions and the nature of the order impugned, it is profitable to refer to prayers (a), (b) and (e) in the plaint and they read thus:
(b) pass a decree of declaration and cancellation thereby declaring and cancelling the sale deed dated 10.01.2011 which was registered as document No. 158 entered in Additional Book No. I, Volume No. 3671 at pages 109 to 121 on 10.01.2011 in the office of Sub-Registrar I, Delhi by the defendant: no. 2 to 4 in favour of the defendants no. 5 to 9 being illegal, void, ineffective/inoperative and of no consequences.
(e) pass a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants jointly and severally including against their heirs, agents, employees assignees, representatives, successors etc. thereby restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiffs from their respective front and rear portions at second and third floors of the property No. E-173, Kamla Nagar, Delhi more particularly shown in red colour in the side plan filed with the plaint.”
3. In the application filed under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, praying for rejection of the plaint before the Trial Court it was contended by the 5th defendant/the second appellant herein that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and proper Court fee was not paid. It was further contended therein that since the plaintiff/the respondent herein had valued the suit, as is evident from the plaint, at Rs. 1 Crore he was required
A suit which has not been properly valued and proper court fee has not been paid, can rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
The court affirmed that jurisdiction and suit valuations must be based solely on amended pleadings in accordance with procedural laws, rejecting external assertions not contained in the plaint.
plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds were fabricated and therefore, were void. Considering the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, it was held that sui....
Section 2 (2) C.P.C which defines the expression “decree” and thereafter held that definition of decree in Section 2 (2) C.P.C shall be deemed to include an order rejecting a plaint.
The court clarified that a non-executant must pay ad valorem court fees for declaring a sale deed void, capped at Rs.1,50,000 under the Madhya Pradesh Amendment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of court fees for a suit challenging gift deeds based on the value of the properties mentioned in the gift deeds and the nature o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the correct payment of court fee in a suit must be determined in accordance with settled legal principles and the specific provisions of the C....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
