1. This civil revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order of the second Additional District Judge, Jammu dated 29th May, 2004 in civil suit no.46 of 2001 directing him to pay deficit court-fee on the amount of Rs.1, 47,771.71 as directed by order dated 26th September 2003. By the said order similar direction had been issued to the plaintiff to pay deficit court-fee.

2. The petitioner has paid a fixed court-fee of Rs.25 which according to him is sufficient in view of the relief sought by him. The question for consideration is whether he is liable to pay ad valorem court-fee on the amount or the court-fee of Rs.25 - paid as fixed court-fee is sufficient?

3. Before referring to the case of plaintiff which basically would determine his liability to pay ad valorem court-fee or fixed court fee, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Court Fees Act, 1997 (1920 AD):

7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits. - The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows: -

(i) ¦

(ii) ¦

(iii) ¦

(iv) In suits -

¦ ¦ ¦

¦ ¦ ¦

(c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief - to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed;

¦ ¦ ¦

¦ ¦ ¦

according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought.

¦ ¦ ¦

4. The scale of ad valorem court-fee is mentioned in Schedule I whereas Schedule II contains the scale of the fixed court-fee. According to the plaintiff, the court-fee payable with respect to the relief in question falls under Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II which runs as under:

17. Plaint or memorandum of appeal in each of the following suits: -

¦ ¦ ¦

¦ ¦ ¦

(iii) to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed.

5. On a plain reading it would appear that where the plaintiff seeks a declaratory decree and also prays for consequential relief, he is required to pay ad valorem court-fee on the amount at which the relief is valued; and where he seeks a declaratory decree without praying for consequential relief, he is required to pay the fixed court-fee. Thus there should be no difficulty or doubt in applying the relevant provision and no dispute should normally arise. However, as the dispute is somewhat fiscal in nature and depending on the outcome of the dispute, the plaintiff may have to pay a much bigger amount if court-fee is Section 7(iv)(c) applicable, more often than not, suits have been framed in a manner that the plaintiff is able to avoid court-fee as if the suit falls within the ambit of Article 17(iii) of Schedule II giving rise to the question as involved in this suit. The question as to whether section 7(iv)(c) or Article 17(iii) applies in a particular case has naturally been subject of perennial dispute and the case law is replete with decisions on the point. I propose to refer to some of them as guidelines for deciding the dispute involved in this revision.

6. In Mt. Rupia v Bhatu Mahton, AIR 1944 Patna 17, a Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that in considering what court-fee is payable on a plaint, caution must be observed so as not to import into the plaint which it does not really contain, either actually or by necessary implication. In construing the plaint the Court must take it as it is, not as it may think it ought to have been. The relief not asked for cannot be imported so as to charge court-fee thereon. Where a plaintiff who is entitled to consequential relief frames his suit as one for a declaration only, the Court is not entitled to insist upon his paying for a consequential relief and paying the court-fee proper for such a suit. The Court, however, added a caveat as under:

But the dexterity of the person drawing up the pleadings avoiding the use of certain words in the plaint, which would make the relief a consequential one,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document