Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1583 (PNJ)

R. S. Malik v. Krishan Mohan, Ias & Others

2009-09-07

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2009
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 9.12.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh, on an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11(b) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. as amended. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of damages, mentioning therein that the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee was valued at Rupees one lac and court fee of Rs. 3320/- (Rupees three thousand three hundred and twenty only) was paid. In the prayer clause it was prayed that. the suit of the plaintiff be decreed with costs for a sum of Rupees one crore against each of defendants Nos. 1 to 8 severally. Interest @ 18% p.a. was also claimed on the decretal amount. 3. In the written statement filed, an objection was taken that, the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. The issue was framed in this regard. 4. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 thereafter moved an application for rejection of plaint for want of requisite court fee. The learned trial Court was pleased to pass the impugned order. The operative part of which reads as under :- "5. After hearing the Id. Counsel for both the parties and going through the case file carefully, I am of the considered opinion that the pronouncement relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiff is not applicable to the present facts of the case for a simple reasons that in a suit for renditions of accounts the exact money which is going to be recovered cannot be ascertained but plaintiff in the present case is seeking damages in the categorical terms. He has claimed rupees one crore each from each of the defendants so he knows the exact amount which he wants to claim and there is scope for the court to go into the valuation as plaintiff has himself categorically explained the amount which he want to recover. Under such circumstances there is no ambiguity in the mind of this court that the plaintiff is bound to affix ad valorem court fee on Rs. 8.00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores) and he is directed to affix the same on Eight Crores of Rupees within 30 days. Under such circumstances there is no ambiguity in the mind of this court that the plaintiff is bound to affix ad valorem court fee on Rs. 8.00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores) and he is directed to affix the same on Eight Crores of Rupees within 30 days. The pronouncement of our Honble High Court is fully applicable to the present facts of the case. To come up on 9.1.2007 for filing court fee." 5. Mr. B.R. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on blehalf of the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the plea that, in the written statement objection regarding non-payment of proper court fee was raised and issue was framed, therefore, there was no occasion for the defendant/respondents now to file a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint, especially when the Reader of the Court found the suit to be properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. 6. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner had undertaken to pay the court fee on the decretal amount when the final decree is passed, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In support of the contention the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Commercial A viation & Travel Company and others v. Mrs. Vimla Panna Lal, 1988(2) PLR 288, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under :- "Held further, that our attention has been drawn to paragraph 33 of the plaint where it has been stated by the plaintiff that on rendition of accounts, the plaintiff estimates that approximately a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs to 30 lakhs would become due to her share. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that in view of such a statement in the plaint, the respondent should have valued the relief for rendition of accounts at Rs. 25 lakhs. We are unable to accept the contention. The statement does not, in ouropinion, 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. 25 lakhs. We are unable to accept the contention. The statement does not, in ouropinion, 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 that on account being taken, she would be entitled to such a huge amount. The respondent has not give in the plaint any material in support of the estimate of Rs. 25 lakhs to 30 lakhs to her share. As has been stated already, this is no material at all on which any reliance can be placed for the purpose of valuation of the relief. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also the legal position and in our view the valuation of the relief for the rendition of accounts under section (iv)(f)of the Court fees Act is neither unreasonable nor it is demonstratively arbitrary." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Hem Raj v. Harchet Singh & others, 1993(1) Civil Court Cases 48 (P&H), State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh, 2005(1) RCR(Civil) 54 : 2005(1) ISJ (Banking) 282 and Subhash Chander Gael v. Harvind Sugar AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 248. The revision is contested by the respondent by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ran/it Kaur and others v. Punjab State Electricity Board and another, 2007(1) RCR(Civil) 686. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in this revision. 8. The Uonble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Commercial A viation & Travel Company and others v. Mrs. Vimla Panna Lal (supra) while dealing with a suit for rendition of account, formed a view that the valuation by the plaintiff could not be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. as specific amount to which the plaintiff would be entitled to could not be determined at the time of filing of the suit. In the case in hand, the plaintiff/petitioner claimed specific amount, therefore, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court will not apply to the facts of the case. as specific amount to which the plaintiff would be entitled to could not be determined at the time of filing of the suit. In the case in hand, the plaintiff/petitioner claimed specific amount, therefore, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court will not apply to the facts of the case. The other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was considered by this Court in the case of Ranjit Kaur and others v. Punjab State Electricity Board and another (supra), this Court was pleased to lay down that when specific amount is claimed, the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee. The judgment passed by this Court reads as under :- " 13. The observations in Hem Rajs case (supra) that there is no distinction in a suit for rendition of accounts and a suit for damages is contrary to the provisions of Section 7(i) contemplating ad valorem court fees in a suit for money and the amount at which the relief is sought in a suit for accounts in terms of Section 7(iv)(f) of the Act. Since the statute itself deals with these suits differently, the basis of such judgment is, in fect, contrary to the statutory provisions. 9. In the present case, the plaintiffs have specifically claimed Rs. 20 lacs as damages. Though exact break up of the entire claim has not been mentioned, yet the basis of claim of such compensation is available in the plaint which is,evident from reading para Nos. 5 to 9 thereof. Therefore, the plaintiffs have claimed specific amount. Whether the plaintiffs succeed in claiming such amount is not the question which can be gone into at the time of deciding the qucstion whether proper court fees has been affixed. The plaintiff may or may not succeed in getting the amount claimed but it is for him to establish his loss and affix court fees thereon. It is well settled that the court fees has to be determined on the basis of entire reading of the plaint. Therefore, in terms of Section 7(i) of the Act. the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fees on the amount of Rs. 20 lacs." 10. It is well settled that the court fees has to be determined on the basis of entire reading of the plaint. Therefore, in terms of Section 7(i) of the Act. the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fees on the amount of Rs. 20 lacs." 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, because the issue has been framed or that the Reader has found the Court fee to be correct can be of no consequence, as it is for the Court to determine the court fee payable on the pleadings of the parties and the note of the Reader is of no consequence. The plea that, plaintiff would pay Court fee on a subsequent date can also be of no help to the petitioner, as the Court in view of the pleadings has held that ad valorem Court fee is payable and opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to make good the Court fee. There is no merit in the revision, which is ordered to be dismissed. 11. The petitioner is now granted one months time, to make good the court fee. from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order accordingly.