J U D G M E N T

(Judgment released on 31.03.2022)

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J. (ORAL)

I.A. No.10578/2021 By way of the present application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) the defendants seek rejection of the plaint on the ground that insufficient court fee has been affixed on the plaint. The defendants also seek rejection of the plaint in view of the provisions of section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963 alleging that the plaintiff is thereby seeking the relief of mere declaration with no consequential relief, which is impermissible in law.

Applicant/Defendants’ submissions:

2. Mr. S.C. Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the defendants, submits that the plaintiff has not paid proper court fee on the plaint inasmuch as in para 57 of the plaint, the suit has been valued for the relief of declaration in relation to two relinquishment deeds at Rs.400/- and for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs.4,50,00,000/- but court fee of only Rs.1,100/- has been affixed on the plaint. It is Mr. Singhal‘s contention that since the plaintiff values the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs.4,50,00,000/-, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee on the said sum, which would be Rs.4,39,200/- instead of paying only Rs.1,100/-. Counsel contends that for this reason alone, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Furthermore, it is contended by Mr. Singhal that the suit is also barred by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, since the plaintiff has sought a decree merely of declaration without seeking any consequential relief.

Plaintiff‘s submissions :

3. Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr.

Shivek Trehan, learned counsel for the plaintiff, appearing on advance copy, opposes the issuance of notice on the present application, submitting that the application is wholly meritless and is a misuse of the process of law, having been filed only to delay proceedings in the suit.

4. Mr. Virmani has drawn the attention of this court to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. reported as (2010) 12 SCC 112, which draws a clear distinction between a case where a party seeks ‘cancellation’ of a deed to which such party is signatory or executant and a case where a party seeks a ‘declaration’ that a deed is invalid, non-est or illegal where such party is not signatory or executant of the deed.

5. Learned senior counsel submits that the position of law as enunciated in Suhrid Singh (supra) still holds the field; and that the principle has been followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Smt. Tabassum Ara vs. Mohd. Kamil & Ors. reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 672.

6. Learned senior counsel submits that the plaintiff has not sought possession of either of the two properties that are subject matter of the relinquishment deeds, since it is the plaintiff‘s case that property bearing No. R-603 New Rajinder Nagar is already in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff and property bearing No. R-592 New Rajinder Nagar is in joint possession of the parties.

7. It is pointed-out that requisite averments as to the status of possession of the properties are contained inter-alia in para 24 of the plaint, the relevant portion of which reads thus :

“E.STATUSOFIMMOVABLEPROPERTIESASON DATE

8. To answer the defendants’ contention that the plaintiff has not sought any consequential relief, attention of this court is drawn to the provisions of section 31 of the Specific Reliefs Act. It is the plaintiff‘s case that in fact, the plaintiff is not seeking any consequential relief but only a direction which follows upon the relinquishment deeds