In a suit for specific performance, claims for Court Fees are based on the consideration for the parts of the contract claimed, even if the agreement is unregistered.

JUDGEMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

I.A. 3028/2025 (by D-1 for dismissal of suit) in CS(OS) 276/2024

1. The applicant in the instant application prays for the following relief:-

“i) frame a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the present Suit and decide the said preliminary issue in favour of Defendant No.1 in accordance with the submissions made in the present Application and dismiss the present Suit being not maintainable in the eyes of law, in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the instant suit is not properly valued and that the plaintiff has no case to seek the reliefs prayed in the captioned suit. He submits that on various grounds as have been enumerated in the application, the instant suit deserves to be rejected.

4. According to him, the application has consciously been filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), so that the Court may,in exercise of its inherent powers, consider all the facts and circumstances relevant to the instant application and pass appropriate orders.

5. The aforesaid contentions are vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that applications seeking rejection of plaint may not be filed under Section 151 of the CPC in view of the express provision for the same under Order VII Rule 11. He further submits that allowing the present application would amount to expansion of the scope of the Court’s power to reject the plaint, by taking into consideration, material, other than the averments in the plaint and the documents relied thereon. He contends that, therefore, the instant application is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the record.

8. The instant application for dismissal of the suit has been filed under Section 151 of the CPC, and the principal grounds urged herein, are (i) improper valuation of the suit and insufficiency of the Court Fees paid thereon. (ii) the suit being barred by limitation, and (iii) that the agreement which is sought to be specifically enforced being unregistered, cannot be specifically enforced.

9. The CPC contains express provisions for rejection of plaints, under Order VII Rule 11. It is settled law that the inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised in respect matters for which express provision has beenmade under the CPC. The grounds raised in the instant application by the defendant for dismissal of the suit are covered under Order VII Rule 11(b) and (d).

10. It is also settled law that the Court may appreciate applications filed under incorrect provisions, as having been filed under the correct applicable provision. Therefore, the present application is to be considered under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

11. The scope of inquiry for rejection of the civil suit as envisaged under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, has been well settled by the Supreme Court. Reference can be made to the decision in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors., 2020 INSC 450. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted below, for reference:

“12.2. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly ad