Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit filed by the respondent, a retired government officer and advocate, against the State of Punjab and its officers for recovery of Rs.20 Lakhs as damages due to denial of his status as a freedom fighter and non-issuance of a certificate, causing mental tension, litigation expenses, and loss of reputation. The suit was registered in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar. The respondent affixed a court fee of Rs.50, relying on a High Court judgment, and undertook to pay court fees on the amount adjudicated later. The appellants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint for insufficient court fees, which the Trial Court allowed, directing payment of ad valorem fees on Rs.20 Lakhs. The High Court, in revision, set aside this order and rejected the application, holding that ad valorem fees were not payable initially as the damages were yet to be adjudicated. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeal. The appellants argued that the High Court erred in relying on inapplicable judgments and that ad valorem fees under Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 were payable, citing precedents like State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh Chowhan. The respondent contended that valuation could not be ascertained initially, and his undertaking sufficed, supported by judgments such as M/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Company v. Vimla Pannalal. The Court analyzed the provisions and precedents, emphasizing that where damages are uncertain, ad valorem fees need not be paid at the outset, and an undertaking to pay later is acceptable. It upheld the High Court's decision, rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit, noting that the suit had been dismissed during pendency and an appeal was pending.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, finding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action for damages and the issue of court fees could be addressed later, as the exact valuation was not ascertainable at the initial stage. Held that the application was rightly rejected, allowing the suit to proceed. (Paras 1-14) B) Court Fees - Valuation and Payment - Section 7(i) Court Fees Act, 1870 - The Court held that ad valorem court fees are not payable on a tentative claim of damages at the institution stage when the exact amount is to be adjudicated later. The plaintiff's undertaking to pay court fees on the adjudicated amount was deemed sufficient, following precedents where valuation could not be initially ascertained. (Paras 10-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the appellants seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-payment of requisite court fees on the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs claimed as damages, and whether ad valorem court fees are payable at the initial stage of the suit
Final Decision
Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment and order dated 11.08.2017, rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit
Law Points
- Court fees under Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act
- 1870 are payable on the amount claimed in a suit for damages
- but where the exact valuation cannot be ascertained at the institution stage
- ad valorem court fees may not be required initially
- and an undertaking to pay court fees on the adjudicated amount suffices
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC application for rejection of plaint on grounds of insufficient court fees should be rejected if the plaint discloses a cause of action and the deficiency can be cured later
