SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 1828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Sandip Kumar Roy Choudary & Mr. Harsh V. Agarwala - Appellant
Versus
Indian Plumbing Association Through Its President Mr. Gurmit Singh Arora - Respondent
CS(OS) 58 of 2021
Decided On : 10-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Abhishek Sharma & Ms. Harshita Agarwal, Advocates., for the Plaintiffs; Mr. Sanjeev Dubey, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Vineet Bhagat & Mr. Mohit Gulati, Advocates., for the Defendant

The nature of relief determines the court fee payable, and the plaintiff has the discretion to value the suit according to its own estimation, unless it is found to be fixed arbitrarily and with malafide intention such as 'Forum Shopping'.

Headnote:

CPC - Suit Valuation - Section 15, Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act, 1970 - The court discussed the principles for proper suit valuation and payment of Court Fee, emphasizing that the nature of relief determines the court fee payable. It highlighted the discretion of the plaintiff to value the suit according to its own estimation, unless it is found to be fixed arbitrarily and with malafide intention such as 'Forum Shopping'. The court dismissed the application for return of the plaint, as it found no malafide in the fixation of the suit value on which ad valorem Court Fee has been paid.

Fact of the Case:

The defendant filed an application for return of the plaint on the ground of suit valuation, alleging that the plaintiff had grossly overvalued the suit to bring it within the jurisdiction of the court. The plaintiff argued that it had the discretion to value the suit according to its own estimation, and the application was without merit.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing the principles for proper suit valuation and payment of Court Fee. It found no malafide in the fixation of the suit value on which ad valorem Court Fee has been paid.

Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff's valuation of the suit was arbitrary and with malafide intention, and whether the application for return of the plaint on the ground of suit valuation had merit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the nature of relief determines the court fee payable, and the plaintiff has the discretion to value the suit according to its own estimation, unless it is found to be fixed arbitrarily and with malafide intention such as 'Forum Shopping'.

Final Decision: The application for return of the plaint on the ground of suit valuation was dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. -

 I.A. 4632/2021

1. An application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been filed on behalf of the defendant for return of the plaint on the ground of suit valuation.

2. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration for declaring the Resolution no. 4 passed in the National Executive Committee (NEC) Special Meeting no. IPA/NEC Spl. Mtg./02 held on 11.12.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and also for injunction for restraining the defendant Company from giving it effect and operation.

3. The defendant Association has filed a Written Statement. The defendant has asserted in the application that in terms of the Section 15 of CPC, every suit instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. The plaintiffs have grossly overvalued the present suit which has no nexus with the cause of action and is an abuse of process of law. The plaintiffs have dishonestly and intentionally inflated the value of the suit with an object to bring within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Arbitrary and whimsical value of ?2,00,01,000/- has been fixed without disclosing any basis. The application is therefore liable to be return under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on.

5. The plaintiff in its reply to the application has asserted that in a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, it is the discretion of the plaintiff to value its suit according to its own estimation and such valuation is normally accepted. It is only in the cases where it is manifestly and deliberately under-estimated that the Court may examine the correctness of the valuation as affixed by the plaintiff.

6. It is submitted that Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') clearly states that in a suit for a declaratory decree and consequential relief and injunction, the plaintiff shall state the amount at which each relief is being valued. The plaintiff has rightly valued its suit and there is no allegation of undervaluation. It is claimed that the application is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Plaintiff has placed reliance on Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1958 SC 245, and Meenakshi Sundaram Chettiar v. Venkatchalam Chettiar (1980) 1 SCC 616.

8. Submissions heard.

9. Section 15 of the CPC provides for the Courts in which the suit may be instituted. It reads as under:

      'Section 15 - Courts in which suits to be instituted - Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it."

      10. Competence means having jurisdiction to try. The jurisdiction has reference to (a) subject matter (b) pecuniary valuation and (c) territorial jurisdiction. This Section is a rule of procedure and not of jurisdiction and it does not therefore, oust the jurisdiction of the Court of higher grade who have concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. When a suit triable by a Court of a lower grade, is instituted in a Court of higher grade, the later Court may return the plaint. It is only discretionary on the part of the later Court. Section 15 of CPC is enacted not merely to avoid overcrowding but also for the convenience of the parties and the witnesses who may be examined by them. Where the relief claimed is of injunction which it is incapable of valuation, the plaintiff may put a notional value and the same should not be questioned by the Court on the ground that the valuation so affixed is to avoid payment of higher amount (P. Rama Rao v. Srikakulam Municipality AIR 1993 AP 255).

      11. Section 7(iv)(d) of the Act provides for computation of fee payable in certain suits. Section 7 of the Act provides for computation of fees payable in certain suits. Section 7(iv)(d) reads as under:

          '7(iv) In suits ... For an injunction-- (d) to obtain an injunction - according to the amount at which the relie

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top