Page 1 of 9

*

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM (M) 750/2010

Date of Decision: 04.12.2012

CHANDERPAL SINGH

…… Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Nandni Sahni, Advocate.

Versus

SURJEET KAUR & ORS.

…… Respondent

Through:

Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for

DDA.

Mr.Gagan

Preet

Singh,

Advocate for the respondent No.

2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks

assailing the order dated 5.4.2010 of learned Addl. District Judge

(ADJ), Delhi, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under

Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (c) read with Section 151 CPC, was dismissed.

2. The respondent Surjeet Kaur had filed a suit for declaration,

cancellation and mandatory injunction against the petitioner and

defendants namely Ankur Mittal and Delhi Development Authority

(DDA). The case of the respondent was that her husband purchased

the house bearing No. 918, Pocket 3, Sector 19, Pappan Kalan,

2012:DHC:7213

Page 2 of 9

Dwarka, New Delhi from its original allottee Mr.Ankur Mittal on

10.07.2007. On 14.10.2008, she came to know that the petitioner

herein, on the basis of forged signatures of original allottee Mr. Mittal,

got executed conveyance deed of the suit property in his (petitioner)

favour from the DDA. She also averred that a complaint in this regard

against the petitioner was lodged with the police vide FIR

No.818/2008, under Sections 420/468/471/511/120B IPC, P.S.

Dwarka. She sought the under-mentioned reliefs in the suit:

2012:DHC:7213

Page 3 of 9

fabricated documents in favour of defendant no. 1”.

3. The case that was set up by the petitioner was that Mr. Mittal

had sold the suit premises to him in September, 2000. He denied that

the signatures of Mr. Mittal were forged, as alleged.

4. The suit was initially filed before the court of Senior Civil

Judge. Since the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and

jurisdiction being more than his jurisdiction, the Sr. Civil Judge placed

the matter before the District Judge for transfer of the same to the court

of appropriate jurisdiction. That is how the case came to the court of

learned ADJ.

5. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11

(b) (c) read with Section 151 CPC, alleging therein that since the

respondent/plaintiff had failed to make good the deficiency in the court

fee despite repeated orders, and since in view of the amendment in

Section 148 CPC, the court could not extend the period of payment of

court fee beyond 30 days, the plaint was liable to be rejected. This

application came to be dismissed vide impugned order, which is under

challenge in the instant petition.

2012:DHC:7213

Page 4 of 9

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the

respondent/plaintiff and DDA. The submissions which have been

made by the learned counsel before me are the same which were made

before the ADJ, that in view of Section 148 CPC, the court could not

extend the period for payment of court fee beyond 30 days from the

date of order. It was submitted that vide orders dated 12.08.2009,

27.08.2009 and 22.09.2009, the respondent/plaintiff was called upon to

pay the deficient court fees, but the plaintiff failed to do the same. It

was also submitted that in any case, the value of the suit premises, as

per conveyance deed was Rs. 6,40,900/- and not Rs. 3 lakhs, as was

declared by the respondent/plaintiff. It was thus submitted that the suit

ought to have been valued under Clause ‘(e)’ and not under Clause

‘(c)’ of Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act. It was also the grievance

of the petitioner that the learned ADJ erred in suo moto directing the

respondent/plaintiff to do the amendments in the plaint. In this regard

reliance was place