Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 468
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Reeta Bashamboo – Appellant
Versus
Subhash Chander Kundra (D) through LRs & Anr. – Respondents
CR No. 2891 of 2023
Decided On : 22-05-2024
For the Parties : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Mr. Chanchal K. Singla.
IMPORTANT POINT
Ad valorem court fees are not required for mesne profits claimed during the pendency of a suit under the Court Fee Act, 1870.
Headnote:
Court Fee - Mesne Profits - Court Fee Act, 1870 - Sections 7(i), 7(ii) - The court interpreted Sections 7(i) and 7(ii) of the Court Fee Act, 1870, concluding that ad valorem court fees are not applicable for mesne profits claimed during the pendency of the suit, influencing the decision to set aside the trial court's order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's order requiring payment of ad valorem court fees on mesne profits claimed for the period during the pendency of the suit, asserting that no such fees were mandated under the Court Fee Act, 1870.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of the Court Fee Act, particularly Section 7(ii), did not apply to mesne profits claimed for the period after the suit was filed, as they pertained to amounts due before the suit.
Issues: Whether ad valorem court fees are payable on mesne profits claimed for use and occupation during the pendency of the suit when no arrears were claimed prior to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 7(ii) of the Court Fee Act, 1870, does not apply to mesne profits claimed during the pendency of the suit, as it refers to amounts due before the suit.
Result: The impugned orders were set aside, and both revision petitions were allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Anil Kshetarpal, J.) :-
With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, two connected revision petitions shall stand disposed of by a common order.
2. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the ad valorem court fee is payable on the amount of mesne profit claimed for use and occupation of the premises during the pendency of the suit particularly when no arrears have been claimed with respect to the period prior to the suit?
3. The trial court has directed the plaintiff (petitioner) to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount of Rs.40,000/- per month as claimed in the suit as mesne profit from the date of filing of the suit till April, 2023. The correctness of such order is challenged in these revision petitions.
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the amount of court fee with respect to the period during the pendency of the suit is not required to be paid on ad valorem basis. He submits that there is no provision in the Court Fee Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1870 Act’), providing for payment of ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed for use and occupation of the premises during the pendency of the suit.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents while referring to Section 7(i) and (ii) of the 1870 Act, submits that in a money suit for maintenance and annuities, the other sums payable periodically, the ad valorem court fee is required to be paid on such value which shall be deemed to be 10 times of the amount claimed to be payable for one year.
7. This court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties.
8. Section 7(i) and (ii) of the 1870 Act, are extracted as under:-
Section 7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits:-
(i) for money:-In suits for money (including suits for damages or compensation or arrears of maintenance or of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically according to the amount claimed;
(ii) for maintenance and annuities;-
(a) in suits for maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically-according to the value of the subject matter of the suit and such value shall be deemed to be ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year;
(b) In suits for reduction or enhancement of maintainability and annuities or other sums payable, periodically-according to the value of the subject matter of the suit and such value shall be deemed to be ten-times the amount sought to be reduced or enhanced for one year).”
9. The plaintiff has filed the suit with the following prayers:-
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for mandatory injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and directing the defendant no.1 to handover the vacant and physical possession of entire first floor of House No.668, Sector 7, Panchkula consisting of three bed room (out of which two rooms are attached with toilets), one drawing room, one dining room, kitchen and temporary toilet on second floor etc. of House No.668, Sector 7, Panchkula to the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 AND a decree for recovery of mesne profits @ Rs.40,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till the delivery of vacant and physical possession of entire First Floor of House No.668, Sector 7, Panchkula consisting of three bed room (out of which two rooms are attached with toilets), one drawing room, one dining room, kitchen and temporary toilet on second floor etc. of House No.668, Sector 7, Panchkula to the plaintiff along with pendentlite and future interest @ 18% per annum may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 along with a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from parting with possession of the above premises in question in any manner to any thi
