Plaintiffs in suits for permanent and mandatory injunctions are required to pay ad valorem court fee based on the valuation they have put on the reliefs.

Headnote:
COURT FEES - VALUATION OF SUIT - PERMANENT INJUNCTION - MANDATORY INJUNCTION - AD VALOREM COURT FEE
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions, valuing both reliefs at Rs. 2,000 each. The defendants challenged the valuation, arguing that it should have been based on the market value of the property (Rs. 5,00,000). The trial court dismissed the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without providing a reasoned order.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem court fee based on the valuation they had put on the reliefs. The court found that the trial court had not provided any justification for the payment of only Rs. 240 in court fees and that the order was unreasoned and non-speaking.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem court fee on the valuation they had put on the reliefs? 2. Whether the trial court had erred in dismissing the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without providing a reasoned order?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that in suits for permanent and mandatory injunctions, the plaintiff is bound to pay ad valorem court fee on the valuation put by the plaintiff himself. The court also held that the trial court's order was not sustainable because it was unreasoned and non-speaking.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's order and directed it to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC afresh in respect of payment of court fee on the existing valuation.

ORDER

This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioners/ defendants challenging the order dated 25.02.2015 passed by Sixth Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No.46-A/2015 whereby defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dated 16.02.2015 has been dismissed without passing speaking order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the plaintiffs have instituted a suit for permanent injunction as well as for mandatory injunction and valued both the relief(s) at Rs.2000/- each, however the plaintiffs were required to value the relief(s) on basis of market value of the property, which is Rs.5,00,000/-. Learned counsel also submits that even on the basis of valuation put in the suit, the plaintiffs have not paid requisite/ advalorem court fee and trial Court without taking into consideration aforesaid aspect of the matter and even without passing speaking order, has dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. By placing reliance on a decision given by co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramvilash vs. Omprakash 2014 (4) MPLJ 589, he prays for setting aside the impugned order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners and perused the record.

4. Perusal of plaint shows that the plaintiffs have valued the relief of permanent injunction at Rs.2,000/- and for the purpose of mandatory injunction also suit has been valued for Rs.2,000/-. Entire plaint does not show as to how much court fee has been paid by the plaintiffs in the suit, however while passing the impugned order dated 25.02.2015, trial Court has mentioned that plaintiffs have paid court fee of Rs.240/-. 5. On what basis court fee of Rs.240/- has been paid by the plaintiffs, has neither been mentioned in the plaint, nor in the order passed by trial Court.

It is well settled that in the suit for permanent injunction as well as for mandatory injunction, the plaintiff is bound to pay advalorem court fee on the valuation put by the plaintiff himself. As no justification has been shown in the impugned order about payment of court fee of Rs.240/- by the plaintiffs and the order is also unreasoned and non-speaking, therefore, the same is not sustainable, so far as it is in relation of payment of advalorem court fee on the valuation put by the plaintiffs.

6. So far as the question of valuation of suit property on the basis of market value, is concerned, the defendants are at liberty to raise objection in the written statement and on that basis trial Court may frame issue and decide the same after recording evidence of the parties.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the impugned order is hereby set aside with the direction to trial Court to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC afresh in respect of payment of court fee on the existing valuation.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off. (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE SN

Click Here to Read the rest of this document