Page 1 of 14

$~S~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 29th March, 2022

+

CS(OS) 192/2021

SANDEEP KAPUR

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr.

Rajeev

K.

Virmani,

Senior

Advocate with Mr. Shivek Trehan,

Mr. Rajat Soni, Ms. Niharika, Mr.

Subhoday Banerjee, Mr. Jai Sahai

Endlaw and Ms. Shagun Chopra,

Advocates.

versus

JANAK KAPUR & ANR.

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. S.C. Singhal and Ms. Poonam

Taneja, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001153

Page 2 of 14

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.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001153

Page 3 of 14

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 :

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRA