Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 303 (PNJ)

Hoshiar Singh v. Niranjan Singh

2008-02-04

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2008
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. Challenge in this revision petition is to an order, dated 30.8.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, whereby on an application, filed by the respondent-defendant, the petitioner-plaintiff has been directed to affix ad-valorem court fee, on the total amount of Rs. 4.27 lacs, as claimed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in a suit for rendition of accounts, any amount, stated to be due to a plaintiff, is a mere approximate estimate and, therefore, cannot form the basis for affixing Court fee. It is submitted that the amount of Rs. 4.27 lacs, mentioned by the petitioner, is an approximate estimate of the amount that the petitioner-plaintiff may receive in the eventuality of his suit for rendition of accounts being decreed. Reliance is placed upon M/S Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and Ors. v. Mrs Vimla Panna Lal 1988(2) PLR 288, and Kuldip Thapar v. Babita Nayar 2004(2) C.C.C 673. The learned trial Court has, however, accepted the averments in the plaint as the final claim of the petitioner and directed affixation of ad-valorem court fee. 3. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that as a plaintiff has calculated the relief due, he is required to affix ad-valorem court fee. It is submitted that as the plaintiff has valued his claim at Rs. 4.27 lacs, the learned trial Court rightly directed him to pay ad-valorem court fee. Reliance is placed upon Bachni Devi v. Tej Ram and Ors. 1993 (Suppl) CCC 393 (P&H), and Shri Banarsi Lal v. Shri Kishan Chand and Ors. 1990(1) PLR 439. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. The Honble Supreme Court in M/S Commercial Aviation and Travel Company and Ors. case (supra) held that under rule 4(i) of the Punjab High Court Rules , framed under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, valuation for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is not the same. 6. In accordance with the aforementioned rule, the value of a suit for accounts, court fee is required to be determined, as per the Court Fee Act, 1870 and, therefore, valuation of the relief would have to be made by the plaintiff, under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fee Act, 1870. 6. In accordance with the aforementioned rule, the value of a suit for accounts, court fee is required to be determined, as per the Court Fee Act, 1870 and, therefore, valuation of the relief would have to be made by the plaintiff, under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fee Act, 1870. While interpreting Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the CPC, their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court observed that where there is an objective standard of valuation, a plaintiff would not be permitted to put an arbitrary valuation ignoring the objective standards or materials. A relevant extract from the aforementioned judgment reads as follows: Under Order 7 Rule 11(b), CPC has to come to a finding that the relief claimed has been undervalued, which necessarily means that the court is able to decide and specify proper and correct valuation of the relief and, after determination of the correct value of the relief, requires the plaintiff to correct his valuation within a time to be fixed by the court. If the court can not determine the correct valuation of the relief claimed, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation and consequently, Order 7 Rule 11(b) will not be applicable. But where there are objective standards of valuation or, in other words, the plaintiff or the court can reasonably value the relief correctly on certain definite and positive materials, the plaintiff will not be permitted to put an arbitrary valuation de hors such objective standards or materials. In such a situation the court is entitled to interfere under Order 7 Rule 11 (b), CPC, for the court will be in a position to determine the correct valuation with reference to the objective standards or materials available to it. But, if there be no material or objective standard, the plaintiffs valuation has to be accepted. In the present case the respondent-plaintiffs statement in the plaint that on rendition of accounts, the plaintiff estimated that approximately a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs to 30 lakhs would become due to her share does not constitute any objective standard of valuation or a positive material from which it can be said with any amount of certainty that the valuation of the relief for accounts should be at the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs. The respondent was not required to make such a statement in the plaint. It is the wishful thinking of the respondent. 25 lakhs. The respondent was not required to make such a statement in the plaint. It is the wishful thinking of the respondent. In the circumstances the valuation of the relief for the rendition of accounts under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court fees Act is neither unreasonable nor is it demonstratively arbitrary. 7. The aforementioned judgment was followed by a Single Bench of this Court in Kuldip Thapars case (supra), and while considering a similar controversy, as has arisen in the present case, it was held as follows: 7. When the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in M/S Commercial Aviation and Travels Co.s case (supra) are applied to the facts of the present case it becomes evident that plaintiff-respondent has wishfully estimated that a sum of rupees forty lacs or even more would become due to her which is a wishful thinking and she was not required to make such a statement in the plaint. There is no objective standard of valuation on the basis of which the Court could arrive at a definite conclusion under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the Code directing the plaintiff-respondent to affix the Court fee on that basis. Therefore, the revision petition is mis conceived and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. 8. Applying the aforementioned principles to the present controversy, it would have to be held that the amount, referred to by the petitioner, in the plaint, is an approximate estimate of the amount that he may receive, if the suit for rendition of accounts is decreed in his favour. It is a wishful estimate of his claim. There being no objective standard of valuation on the basis of which the Court could arrive at a definite conclusion under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the CPC, directing the petitioner to affix the ad-valorem court fee, was an error, committed by the learned trial Court. 9. The judgments, relied upon by counsel for the respondent, are contrary to the view, taken by the Honble Supreme Court in M/S Commercial Aviation & Travel Company and Ors. case (supra), and reliance thereon is, therefore, misplaced. 10. In view of what has been stated above, the revision petition is allowed and the order, dated 30.8.2007 is set aside. 9. The judgments, relied upon by counsel for the respondent, are contrary to the view, taken by the Honble Supreme Court in M/S Commercial Aviation & Travel Company and Ors. case (supra), and reliance thereon is, therefore, misplaced. 10. In view of what has been stated above, the revision petition is allowed and the order, dated 30.8.2007 is set aside. The trial Court, upon conclusion of the suit for rendition of accounts, shall call upon the petitioner to pay such court fee, as may be due, in accordance with the claim that may be decreed in his favour.