Back
2000 (1) JLJ 67
S.C. Pandey, J.
Raj Kaur Randhawa (Smt.) v. M/s. Kinetic Gallery and another
Civil Revn. No. 910 of 1998; against the order of IXth Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur, passed in Civil Suit No. 27-A of 1996; Decided on 10.12.1998.
(2) Suits Valuation Act, 1958 -- S. 8 -- Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 7 (iv) -suit falling under paragraph (iv) of section 7 of 1870 Act -- would be governed by S. 8 of 1958 Act -- valuation put for court-fees -- shall be put for pecuniary jurisdiction of Court also. [Para 6]
(3) Court-fees Act, 1870--S. 7 (iv)--suit failing under -- Court would accept the valuation put by plaintiff unless it is too low or high. [Para 6]
(4) Suits Valuation Act, 1958 --S. 4 -- Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 4 -Court-fees-Act, 1870 -- S. 7 (iv) – suit failing under S. 7 (iv) of 1870 Act -- S. 4 of 1958 Act provides guidlines for valuing if for court-fees and pecuniary jurisdiction. [Para 6]
(5) Suits Valuation Act, 1958--S. 3 -- Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 7 (iv) (c) and Sch.II, Art. 17 -- suits under S. 7 (iv)(c) or under Sch.II Art. 17 of 1870 Act--State Government framed rules under S. 3 of 1958 Act -- valuation would not exceed the maximum prescribed under the rules. 1976 MPLJ 484 referred to. [Para 6]
(6) Suits Valuation Act, 1958 -- Ss. 3 and 4 -- suit in respect of land not liable to be assessed for land revenue -- no rules framed under S. 3 -- valuation of suit to be put by plaintiff -- such value should be actual value of the relief which should neither be high or low. [Para 6]
(7) Court-fees Act, 1870 - S. 7 (iv) (d) -- suit for permanent injunction -it may be necessary to value the relief in accordance with the valuation of property affected by permanent injunction. [Para 7]
(8) Court-fees Act, 1870--S. 7 (iv) (c) and (d) -- suit under either of the provisions -- mode of valuation is to value relief sought. [Para 7]
(9) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 7 (iv) (c) and (d) -- whether the suit is for consequential permanent injunction under S. 7 (iv) (c) or for permanent injunction under S. 7 (iv) (d) -- mode of valuation of that relief should not necessarily change. [Para 7]
(10) Court-fees Act, 1870 --S. 7 (iv) (c) -- suit under – plaintiff is not entitled to value relief of permanent injunction simplicitor less than relief of declaration and consequential injunction in respect of same property -- arbitrary valuation is liable to be corrected. 1963 JLJ 674 relied on. [Para 7]
(11) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 7 (iv) -- valuation of suit -- is not the value of thing affected -- it is the value of relief sought which has to be determined. ILR 1938 Nag. 558 relied on. [Para 7]
(12) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 7 (iv) (c) -- relief of declaration directly and inextricably related with relief of injunction -- two cannot be valued separately. [Para 7]
(13) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 7 (iv) (c) -- cloud cast on running of the business -- valuation of Rs. 300/- is correct for consequential relief of injunction. AIR 1951 Nag. 218 relied on. [Para 7]
(14) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 7 (iv) (c) -- suit under -- no title to any land or interest therein claimed -- valuation of three lacs for declaration is arbitrary.[Para 7]
¼1½ okn ewY;kadu vf/kfu;e] 1958&/kkjk 4 rFkk 8&Uk;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7 ¼IV½&Okkn dk ewY;kadu&okni= iwjk i<+us ds i‘pkr~ vo/kkfjr fd;k tkuk gksxk] dsoy mldk çkFkZuk [kaM i<+ dj ughaA , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 245 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 2
¼2½ okn ewY;kadu vf/kfu;e] 1958&/kkjk 8&Uk;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7 ¼IV½&okn] 1870 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 ds iSjk ¼IV½ ds v/khu vkus okyk&1958 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 }kjk ‘kkflr gksxk&Uk;ky; Qhl ds fy, fd;k x;k ewY;kadu&Uk;ky; dh /kuh; vf/kdkfjrk ds fy, Hkh gksxkA ¿iSjk 6
¼3½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7 ¼IV½&ds v/khu vkus okyk okn&Uk;ky;] oknh }kjk fd;k x;k ewY;kadu Lohdkj djsxk ;fn og cgqr vf/kd Å¡pk ;k uhpk ugha gSA ¿iSjk 6
¼4½ okn ewY;kadu vf/kfu;e] 1958&/kkjk 4&Uk;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7 ¼IV½&okn] 1870 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 (IV) ds v/khu vkus okyk&1958 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 esa] blds U;k;ky; Qhl vkSj /kuh; vf/kdkfjrk gsrq ewY;kadu ds fy, ekxZn‘khZ fl)kar micaf/kr gSA ¿iSjk 6
¼5½ okn ewY;kadu vf/kfu;e] 1958&/kkjk 3&Uk;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7 ¼IV½ ¼x½ rFkk vuqlwph 2 vuq- 17&1870 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 ¼IV½ ¼x½ vFkok vuqlwph 2 vuq- 17 ds v/khu okn&1958 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu;e fojfpr&ewYkadu] fu;eksa esa fofgr vf/kdre ls vf/kd ugha gksxkA 1976 ,e ih ,y ts 484 fufnZ"VA ¿iSjk 6
¼6½ okn ewY;kadu vf/kfu;e] 1958&/kkjk 3 rFkk 4&okn] ,slh Hkwfe ds ckjs esa tks Hkw&jktLo ds fy, fu/kkZj.k ds fy, nk;h ugha gSa&/kkjk 3 ds v/khu dksbZ fu;e fojfpr ugha&okn dk ewY;kadu oknh }kjk fd;k tkuk gksxk&,slk ewY; vuqrks"k dk okLrfod ewY; gksuk pkfg, tks u vf/kd gks] u deA ¿iSjk 6
¼7½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7 ¼IV½ ¼x½&LFkkh O;kns‘k ds fy, okn&LFkkh }kjk çHkkfor laifÙk ds ewY;kadu ds vuqlkj vuqrks"k dk ewY;kadu vko‘;d gks ldrk gSA ¿iSjk 7
¼8½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7 ¼IV½ ¼x½ rFkk ¼?k½&bu mica/kksa esa ls fdlh ds v/khu okn&ewYkadu dh jhfr bZfIlr vuqrks"k ds ewY;kadu dh gSA ¿iSjk 7
¼9½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7 ¼IV½ ¼x½ rFkk ¼?k½&okn pkgs /kkjk 7 ¼IV½ ¼x½ ds v/khu ikfj.kkfed LFkk;h O;kns‘k ds fy, vFkok /kkjk 7 ¼IV½ ¼?k½ ds v/khu LFkk;h O;kns‘k ds fy, gks&ml vuqrks"k ds ewY;kadu dh jhfr vko‘;d :i ls ifjofrZr ugha gksxhA ¿iSjk 7
¼10½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7 ¼IV½ ¼x½&ds v/khu okn&oknh] LFkk;h O;kns‘k ds vuqrks"k dk ewY;kadu] mlh laifÙk ds ckjs esa ?kks"k.kk vkSj ikfj.kkfed O;kns‘k ds vuqrks"k ls de djus dk vçfrca/k gdnkj ugha gSa&euekuk ewY;kadu ‘kq) fd, tkus dk nk;h gSA 1963 ts ,y ts 674 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 7
¼11½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7 ¼IV½&okn dk ewY;kadu&çHkkfor oLrq dk ewY; ugha gSa&vo/kkfjr dh tkus okyh ckr bZfIlr vuqrks"k dk ewY; gSA vkb ,y vkj 1938 ukxiqj 558 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 7
¼12½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7 ¼IV½ ¼x½&?kks"k.kk dk vuqrks"k] O;kns‘k ds vuqrks"k ls lh/kk vkSj vya?kuh; :i ls lacaf/kr&nksuksa dk i`Fkd&i`Fkd ewY;kadu ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿iSjk 7
¼13½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7¼IV½ ¼x½&dkjckj dk lapkyu vLi"Vrk ls osf"Vr&Okns‘k ds ikfj.kkfed vuqrks"k ds fy, #- 300@& dk ewY;kadu lgh gSA , vkb vkj 1951 ukxiqj 218 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 7
¼14½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870&/kkjk 7 ¼IV½ ¼x½&ds v/khu okn&fdlh Hkwfe vFkok mlesa fdlh fgr ds gd dk nkok ugha&?kks"k.kk ds fy, rhu yk[k dk ewY;kadu euekuk gSaA ¿iSjk 7
1. This is plaintiff s revision. It is filed against the order dated 4th of April, 1998, passed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 27-A/96. The trial Court required the applicant to pay the deficit of court-fee on Rs. Three Lakhs within one month of the date of the order in exercise of its powers under Order 7 Rule II (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. In order to understand the nature of controversy, regarding the payment of court-fee, between the parties to this revision, it is imperative to consider the allegations in the plaint for determining the nature of reliefs claimed by the applicant. The question of pecuniary jurisdiction and in given cases the question of payment of court-fee are intimately and inextricably connected with allegations in the plaint. It is often found that the real reliefs claimed as per body of the plaint are not reflected in the prayer clause. Therefore, the Courts, as a rule, determine the question of pecuniary jurisdiction and the payment of court-fee by reading the plaint as a whole instead of confining themselves to the prayer clauses. These principles are so well established that it is not necessary to cite any authority on the point. It would, however, proper to point out that in the case of S.Rm.Ar.S.Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S.Rm.Ar.Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245, the proposition aforesaid was conceded so far as the court-fee is concerned. The suit in that case was governed by the provisions of Section 7 (iv) of Court-Fees Act. In view of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (iv) of Court Fees Act. However, no departure can be made from the principle aforesaid of reading the plaint as a whole even in those cases where the plaintiff seeks a relief requiring payment of fixed court-fee but puts his own value on the relief involved for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.
3. The applicant claimed that sub-dealer of two companies since 1988 (i) Kinetic Honda Motor-Cycles authorising her to sell and service motor-cycles manufactured by the company (ii) She is also sub-dealer of mopeds and machines, manufactured by the Kinetic Engineering Ltd. It is sister concern of the forum. She was then authorised to sell and service Mopeds and Machines manufactured by the Kinetic Engineering Ltd. The applicant claimed that pursuant to the authorisation made by the two aforesaid companies, she opened a show-room for Kinetic Honda Motor-Cycles and Mopeds and Machines in the year 1988. It is stated in the plaint that the respondents No.2 and 4 are the authorised dealers of the aforesaid companies. Out of the aforesaid defendants only defendant No.2 has been arrayed as the non-applicant No.2. It is alleged in the plaint that the non-applicant No. 1 was claiming that it was authorised as a sub-dealer of the aforesaid companies. In this act it was aided by the non-applicant No.2. It is further alleged that, when the applicant came to know about the intention of the non-applicant, she wrote a letter to Kinetic Honda Company. By letter dated 16.9.1996, the aforesaid company confirmed the fear of the applicant that the non-applicant No.1 was not appointed a sub-dealer by the company. The non-applicant No.1 persisted in its illegal activities and, therefore, she was compelled to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The applicant prayed in her plaint that she be declared the authorised sub-dealer of both the companies aforesaid and the non-applicant No. 1 is not authorised to run a show-room in the capacity of sub-dealer of the aforesaid companies. The second relief claimed was that the Court may pass a decree of permanent. injunction restraining the non-applicant No.1 from running the show-room established by it infront of her show-room and further restraining it from servicing the Honda Motor Cycles and Mopeds and Machines manufactured by the afore
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
