IMPORTANT POINT
A mandatory injunction sought in a suit for declaration is an independent claim requiring separate court fees, not merely consequential to the declaration.

ORDER :

(Sanjay Dwivedi, J.)

By this petition, the petitioner is questioning the validity of the order dated 19-1-2023 (Annexure P/3) passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure asking relief that since the suit is undervalued, therefore, the plaint be rejected.

2. The trial Court allowed the application and directed plaintiff/petitioner to pay ad-valorem Court fees because he filed the suit for declaration and also for mandatory injunction.

3. As per the facts of the case, the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit in which he paid the Court fees with respect to the relief of declaration but no Court fees for the relief of mandatory injunction was paid because as per the plaintiff/petitioner, the said relief was consequential in nature. The trial Court while allowing the application observed that the mandatory injunction is not a consequential relief to the declaration, as claimed, and as such separate Court fees is required to be paid by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the trial Court directed the plaintiff/petitioner to pay the separate Court fees in respect of the relief of mandatory injunction.

4. From perusal of the plaint available on record, it is seen that the a declaration has been sought by the plaintiff that the direction issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 granting retiral dues of late Smt. Kiran Sharma (Gaud), Teacher, Government Kamla Nehru Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhopal in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4/defendants and the proceeding initiated thereof be declared null and void and consequently it is also claimed that by granting mandatory injunction, the said amount be paid to the plaintiff.

5. The sole ground of challenging the impugned order is that the relief of injunction in a suit of declaration cannot be said to be a separate relief but it is consequential to the declaration sought and therefore no separate Court fees is required to be paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment passed in Civil Revision No. 433 of 2006, Ashok Kumar Gebani and others vs. Ramhet Agrawal and others decided on 16-7-2007 in which the Court found that in a suit for declaration, relief of injunction restraining other party cannot be said to be a consequential relief.

6. However, I am not convinced with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in my opinion the judgment relied by him is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. It is a case in which declaration sought by the plaintiff but by way of relief, which is claimed to be a consequential relief. He is asking an independent claim for himself and therefore the relief of declaration and other relief connected thereto and claimed by the plaintiff/petitioner cannot be considered to be consequential to the declaration claimed. The relief, which is said to be a consequential relief, can be claimed independently by the plaintiff.

7. The legal position, as is involved in the present case, has been dealt with by the Delhi High Court in the case of Sujata Sharma vs. Manu Gupta and ors., reported in 2010 SCC Online Del 506 wherein the Court relied upon the case of Hans Raj Kalra vs. Kishan Lal Kalra and ors., reported in ILR 1976 Delhi 745, in which the Court observed as under :

10. In support of her submission another decision has been referred being Hans Raj Kalra vs. Kishan Lal Kalra, ILR 1976 Delhi 745 as regards the issue of Court fee payable on mere declaration and/or consequential relief. The Court held as follows :

“(20) It is fairly well settled that it is not the form of the plaint or the manner in which the relief is worded in it, but the substance of it, which is determinative of its real nature and character and in determining whether a suit is a suit for a mere declaration or for a declaration with a consequential relief a Court must not be carried away by the form of the plaint but must look t