Relief of permanent injunction is governed by Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act and is not a consequential relief to a declaration under Section 7(iv)(c) for the purpose of calculating court fees.

ORDER

The present Petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Trial Court whereby the Trial Court has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. filed by the Petitioner/Defendant.

The application was filed on two grounds firstly, that the suit is barred by limitation and secondly, that deficit court fees has been paid on the Plaint.

So far as the suit being barred by limitation is concerned, the Trial Court has held that looking to the Plaint assertions, the suit cannot be said to be barred by limitation at the face value of Plaint assertions and therefore, it is a triable issue that whether the plaint is barred by limitation and the Petitioner is at liberty to take requisite objection in the written statement.

Therefore, to the extent of the objection of limitation is concerned, the Petitioner would be at liberty to take the objection in written statement and the logic and reasoning of the Trial Court in stating that looking to the Plaint averment, the question of limitation being a disputed question and a triable issue is not reliable to be interfered.

So far as deficit Court fees is concerned, it is seen that the Plaintiff has sued for partition, declaration of sale deeds as void and also for permanent injunction.

So far as the relief of partition is concerned, the Plaintiff has valued the suit on the basis of his share i.e, 1/64 in the property and has paid the ad valorem Court fees on the market value of his share. This is not the objection of the Petitioner/defendant. Now, the sale deeds which are sought to be declared null and void, in those sale deeds, the plaintiff is not a party and therefore, not paying the ad valorem Court fees on the valuation of sale deeds is also not objected to. What is objected to is that since the relief of permanent injunction is sought and the relief of permanent injunction being consequential to be relief of declaration and therefore, as per Section 7 (iv) (c) of Court Fees Act, the Plaintiff was under obligation to pay the same Court fees where consequential relief was prayed.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in C.R.No.2/2014 (Indore) decided on 09.04.2014 whereby the co-ordinate bench relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 granted more particularly in para 11.3 thereof has held that the relief of permanent injunction is consequential to the relief of declaration.

In the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, para 11 is as under:-

“11. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly.

11.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

11.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.

11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintif