A suit for specific performance must be valued based on the agreement's consideration, and clever drafting cannot obscure the true nature of the relief sought.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioners of the present application, who are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in C.S. No. 87 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar, question the correctness of order dated 03.08.2021 passed by the said Court in rejecting the application filed by them for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule, 11(b) and (c) of CPC.

2. The facts of the case are that the sole opposite party filed the aforementioned suit seeking the following relief:

“(a) let, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a decree declaring the unilateral cancellation of General Power of Attorney (GPA) dtd.06.08.2014 by virtue of Regd. Deed of Cancellation dtd.01 09 2020 pertaining to the suit premises after creating interest by the Plaintiff dtd. 07.02.2015 is illegal, invalid, inoperative and not binding on the Plaintiff thereon vide Regd. Agreement for Sale.

(b) let, a decree of permanent injunction be passed restraining the Defendants jointly and/or severally to create any third party interest in respect of the suit premises during subsisting of Regd. Agreement for Sale dtd. 07.02.2015.

(c) let the Defendant No-1 be directed to obtain permission within a specific time from the competent authority for transfer of suit premises on receipt of balance consideration amount in favour of the Plaintiff in pursuant to Regd. Agreement dtd.07.02.2015.

(d) that, during pendency of the suit if it is found that the Defendants jointly and/or severally caused any material damage to the suit premises that too during subsisting of Regd. Agreement for Sale dtd. 07.02.2015 the damaged caused be regularized at the cost of the Defendants by way of mandatory direction.

(e) let, the cost of the suit be decreed in favour of the Plaintiff, AND (f) let, any other relief (s) to which the Plaintiff is entitled to in view of the facts and in the discretion of this Hon’ble Court may and also be granted”

3. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3, after appearance, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 08.07.2021 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had undervalued the suit and written the plaint on insufficient Stamp paper/Court fees. The plaintiff filed his objection on 19.07.2021. The Court below, after hearing the parties rejected the application vide order dated 03.08.2021, which is impugned.

4. Heard Sri Banshidhar Baug, learned Senior counsel with Mr. G.R. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Despite valid service of notice, the opposite party did not appear.

5. Sri Baug would argue that if the plaint averments are considered in their entirety, it would be evident that the plaintiff, in garb of seeking the relief of mandatory injunction under paragraph-13(c) of the plaint has, in fact, sought for a decree of specific performance of contract. As such, the relief is governed under Section 7(x) of the COURT FEES ACT with the plaintiff being liable to pay ad-valorem Court fees on the agreement valuation of the suit land. The valuation of the suit land, as per the registered agreement for sale dated 07.02.2015, is Rs.8,00,00,000/- and as such, Court fee on such amount is to be paid but by clever drafting, the plaintiff has valued the suit for declaratory relief and for injunction, which is grossly undervalued. Under such circumstances, the plaint ought to be rejected as per Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Sri Baug has relied upon several judgments in support of his contentions, which would be discussed hereinafter.

6. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court would like to keep in perspective the position of law relating to valuation of the suit and