C.R. No. 814 of 2007 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 814 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 7.9.2009
R.S. Malik
.......... Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Krishan Mohan, IAS & others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anupam Gupta , Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate
for respondent No.6.
Mr. Rajeev Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
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.
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
C.R. No. 814 of 2007 2
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 No. 1 to 8 severally. Interest @ 18% p.a. was
also claimed on the decretal amount.
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.
Defendants No. 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 ld. 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
C.R. No. 814 of 2007 3claim 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. The
pronouncement of our Hon’ble High
Court is fully applicable to the
present facts of the case. To
come up on 9.1.2007 for filing
court fee.”
Mr. B.R. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf 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.
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
C.R. No. 814 of 2007 4
order cannot be sustained.
In support of the contention the learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of M/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Company and others Vs.
Mrs. Vimla Panna Lal 1988(2) PLR 288, wherein the Hon’ble 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
laks to 30 laks 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 our opinion,
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
C.R. No. 814 of 2007 5statement 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.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on
the judgments of this Court in the cases of Hem Raj Vs. Harchet Singh &
others 1993 Civil Court Cases 48 (P&H), State of Punjab Vs. Jagdip
Singh 2005(1) ISJ (Banking) 282 and Subhash Chander Goel Vs.
Harvind Sagar 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 Ranjit Kaur and others Vs.
Punjab State Electricity Board and another 2007(1) R.C.R. ( Civil) 686.
C.R. No. 814 of 2007 6
On consideration of the matter, I find no force in this revision.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Commercial Aviation &
Travel Company and others Vs. 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 Hon’ble 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 Vs. 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 Raj’s
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
C.R. No. 814 of 2007 7judgment is, in fact, contrary to
the statutory provisions.
14. 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 question 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.”
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that,
because the issue has been framed or that the Reader has found the Court
C.R. No. 814 of 2007 8
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.
The petitioner is now granted one month’s time, to make good
the court fee, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7.9.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE