Back
2001 (1) JLJ 81
Bhawani Singh, C.J., Dipak Misra and A.K. Mishra, JJ.
Subhash Chand Jain v. Chairman, M.P.E.B. and others
Civil Revn. No. 487 of 2000; against the order of the Civil Judge Class II,
passed in Civil Suit No. 45-A of 1999; on reference by
Hon‘ble Dipak Misra, J., Decided on 26.9.2000.
The suits which are mentioned under section 7 (iv) of the Act of 1870 are of such nature where it is difficult to lay down any standard of valuation. This means that the valuation of the reliefs will have to be made by the plaintiff under the entry against which the suit is preferred. Provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the CPC provide inter-alia that the plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is under-valued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time fixed by it, fails to do so. Under this provision, Court has to reach a finding of under-valuation, specify the correct valuation of the relief, determine the same and require the plaintiff to correct the same within the time fixed by the Court. Failure to do so would entail rejection of the plaint. AIR 1988 SC 1636 followed. [Para 6
(2) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 7(iv) -- real money value ascertainable from the plaint -- plaintiff made liable to pay specified amount -- advalorem court-fees has to he paid on such amount.
The nature of suit under section 7 (iv) is such where the Legislature could not lay down fixed standard thereby leaving it to the plaintiff to mention it. But where he attempts to under-value the plaint and the reliefs, Court has to intervene. While doing so, concept of real money value forms integral part of Court enquiry where relief sought has real money value which can be objectively ascertained. Where a plaintiff has been made liable to pay specified amount and asked to pay the same and he claims to avoid it, obviously, he seeks relief to that effect and in case, he avoids payment of court-fee by drafting the plaint in such a way that results in under-valuation of the plaint and the relief, it will be a case of arbitrary and unreasonable under-valuation which. Court is bound to correct.
Substantial relief asked for in the context of the facts of the case forms basis for settling correct court-fee payable in the cases. Consistent view of this Court has been on lines we have taken in this case. 1987 MPLJ 452 overruled. 1977 (II) MPWN 480 and 1963 JLJ 674 approved. AIR 1958 SC 245, AIR 1973 SC 2384. AIR 1987 SC 2085 and AIR 1988 SC 1636 discussed and followed. [Paras 7 to 9
(3) High Court Rules and Orders (M.P.) -- Chap. I R. 9 -- Single Judge not agreeing with view of Division Bench cases -- should refer the case to Chief Justice -- cannot chart different track. [Para 8
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 7 fu- 11 ¼[k½ && U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 7¼iv½ && okni= euekus <ax ls U;wu ewY;kafdr && mfpr ewY;kadu ugha fd;k x;k rFkk lgh U;k;ky; Qhl fu;r le; ds Hkhrj lanÙk ugha dh xbZ && okn [kkfjt fd;k tk ldrk gSA
tks okn lu~ 1870 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7¼iv½ ds varxZr mfYyf[kr gSa] mudk Lo:i ,slk gS fd ewY;kadu dk dksbZ ekud vf/kfyf[kr djuk dfBu gSA bldk vFkZ gS fd oknh }kjk vuqrks"kksa dk ewY;kadu ml izfof"V ds v/khu fd;k tkuk gksxk ftlds lanHkZ esa okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 7 fu;e 11 ¼[k½ ds mica/kksa esa vU; ckrksa ds lkFk micaf/kr gS fd tgk¡ nkok fd;k x;k vuqrks"k U;wu ewY;kafdr gks rFkk U;k;ky; }kjk fu;r le; ds Hkhrj U;k;ky; }kjk visf{kr ewY;kadu lgh djus esa ;kph vlQy jgs] ogk¡ okn [kkfjt fd;k tk,xkA bl mica/k ds v/khu] U;k;ky; }kjk U;wu ewY;kadu dk fu"d"kZ fudkyk tkuk pkfg,] vuqrks"k dk lgh ewY;kadu fofufnZ"V dj mls vokkfjr fd;k tkuk pkfg, rFkk ;kph ls mls U;k;ky; }kjk fu;r le; ds Hkhrj lgh djus dh vis{kk dh tkuk pkfg,A ,slk djus esa foQy jgus dk ifj.kke okn dh [kkfjth gksxkA , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 1636 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 6
¼2½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 7¼iv½ && okni= ls vlyh /kuh; ewY; vfHkfu‘ps; && oknh dks fofufnZ"V jde lanÙk djus ds fy, nk;h cuk;k x;k && ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl ,slh jde ij lanÙk dh tkuk gksrh gSA
/kkjk 7¼iv½ ds v/khu okn dk Lo:i ,slk gS fd fo/kku eaMy }kjk fu;r eku vf/kfyf[kr ugha fd, tk lds ftlds dkj.k bls oknh }kjk mfYyf[kr djus ds fy, NksM+uk iM+kA ijarq tgk¡ og okn rFkk vuqrks"kksa dk U;wu ewY;kadu djus dk iz;kl djrk gS] ogk¡ U;k;ky; dks e/;{ksi djuk gksrk gSA ,slk djrs le;] vlyh /kuh; ewy; dh /kkj.kk U;k;ky;hu tk¡p dk vfuok;Z Hkkx gksrk gS ftlesa bZfIlr vuqrks"k dk vlyh /kuh; ewY; gksrk gS ftls oLrqijd :i ls vfHkfuf‘pr fd;k tk ldrk gSA tgk¡ oknh dks fofufnZ"V jde lanÙk djus ds fy, nk;h cuk;k x;k gS rFkk mls lanÙk djus dks dgk x;k gS] rFkk og mlds ifjoapu dk nkok djrk gS] izdVr% og ml vk‘k; ds vuqrks"k dh bZIlk djrk gS] rFkk mlds }kjk okn vkSj vuqrks"k ds U;wu ewY;kadu esa ifj.kr gksus okys izdkj ls okni= dk izk:i.k dj U;k;ky; Qhl ls cpus dh n‘kk esa ;g euekus vkSj v;qfDr;qDr U;wu ewY;kadu dk ekeyk gksxk ftls lgh djus ds fy, U;k;ky; vkc) gSA
ekeys ds rF;ksa ds lanHkZ esa ek¡xk x;k lkjoku~ vuqrks"k] mu ekeyksa esa lans; lgh U;k;ky; Qhl fu/kkZfjr djus dk vk/kkj gksrk gSA bl U;k;ky; dk vfopy fopkj mlh uhfr ij vkkkfjr jgk gS tks geus bl ekeys esa vaxhd`r dh gSA 1987 ,e ih ,y ts 452 myVk x;kA 1997¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 480 rFkk 1963 ts ,y ts 674 vuqeksfnrA , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 245] , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 2384] , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 2085 rFkk , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 1636 foosfpr rFkk vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7 ls 9
¼3½ mPp U;k;ky; fu;e rFkk vkns‘k ¼e-iz-½ && v/;k; 1 fu- 9 && ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k [kaM U;k;ihB ekeyksa ds n`f"Vdks.k ls lger ugha && ekeyk eq[; U;k;k/kh‘k dks fufnZ"V djuk pkfg, && u;k iFk ugha cuk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 8
Singh, C.J. -- 1. Plaintiff instituted suit against the defendants seeking relief of restraining them not to disconnect the electricity supply to his workshop 'Vinay Agro Industries Khurai (Sagar) pursuant to additional bills served on the plaintiff by the defendants for an amount of Rs. 2,14,747.00. The defendants contested the suit. They preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alleging that the plaintiff had valued the suit for Rs. 600.00 and paid court fee of Rs. 60.00 though his prayer was against recovery of Rs. 2,14,747.00 on which court-fee had not been paid; therefore, the suit was liable to be rejected for arbitrary valuation. The plaintiff submitted that the suit has been filed for permanent injunction not to disconnect the electricity supply and court fee had been paid accordingly. Consequently, the plaint was not defective and the objection was liable to the dismissed.
2. The objection advanced by the defendants prevailed with the trial Court which held that the plaintiff was liable to pay ad-valorem Court fee. This view the trial Court took on the basis of this Court's judgment in Mangilal Jain v. MPEB, Jabalpur and others (1977 II Weekly Notes, Note 480). Plaintiff challenged this order through revision petition which appeared before one of us (Brother Dipak Misra, J.). By order dated May 8, 2000, the case has been referred to larger Bench. After dealing with certain judgments on the question learned Judge said --
"9. It is to be noted that in Mangilal Jain (supra) reliance was placed on the case of Badri Lal (supra) where Sathappa Chettiar (supra) was referred. Thus I find that there is apparent conflict between Mangilal and Jagdish Prasad. It is also noticed, the Courts below are following Mangilal at times and Jagdish Prasad on certain occasions. In view of this I am of the considered opinion, an authoritative pronouncement is called for on this point for better future guidance. As the matter relates to payment of court fees and the whole case relates to that I am inclined to recommend the whole case for reference to the larger Bench under 9(1) of the M.P. High Court Rules. The question that requires to be answered is whether Mangilal Jain (supra) lays down the correct law or Jagdish Prasad (supra)."
This is how the matter comes before the Full Bench.
3. Heard Shri R.K. Samaiya, Advocate for the plaintiff. Shri M.L. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate for the defendants and Shri Ravish Agarwal. Senior Advocate on Court request. Shri Samaiya, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that under Section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short the Act of 1870), the plaintiff is free to value the relief of injunction claimed in the suit. He could not be compelled to value the relief for perpetual injunction at Rs. 2,14,747.00 but fixed court-fee is required to be paid for relief of injunction valued at Rs. 600.00. Learned counsel places reliance on averments contained in the plaint and Single Bench decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad v. MPEB (1987 MPLJ 452) this submission is opposed by learned Senior Counsel appearing against the plaintiff. Certain decisions have been cited in support of the submission.
4. In Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar (AIR 1958 SC 245), the Apex Court in Paragraph 13 said that the question of court fees must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision can not be influenced either by the pleas in the written-statement or by the final decision of the suit on the merits. Later decision of Supreme Court reported in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad (AIR 1973 SC 2384), holds in Paragraph 4 of the judgment that:
"4. As regards the main question that arises for decision, it appears to us that while the Court fee payable on a plaint is certainly to he decided on the basis of the allegations and the prayer in the plaint and the question whether the plaintiffs suit will have to fail for fa
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
