Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, plaintiffs in a civil suit, filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 5 March 2022 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, which allowed an application filed by Defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and directed the plaintiffs to pay court fee on the market value of the suit property. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction simpliciter, claiming that they were owners of the suit property and that the defendants were interfering with their possession. The plaintiffs valued the suit for the purpose of court fee at Rs. 200/- for the declaration and Rs. 200/- for the injunction, and paid court fee accordingly. The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) CPC, contending that the suit was undervalued and that the plaintiffs were required to pay court fee on the market value of the property. The trial court allowed the application, directing the plaintiffs to pay court fee on the market value. The High Court, in its judgment, examined the nature of the suit and held that it was a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction simpliciter, and not a suit for possession. The court noted that the plaintiffs had specifically pleaded that they were in possession of the property. Therefore, the suit fell under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, which provides for court fee on the amount at which the relief is valued in the plaint. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and directed the trial court to decide the issue of valuation and court fee afresh, after hearing the parties, in accordance with law. The court also clarified that the trial court could examine the correctness of the valuation and, if necessary, direct the plaintiffs to pay the deficit court fee, but not on the basis of market value of the property.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) CPC - Court Fee - The trial court allowed defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) CPC directing plaintiffs to pay court fee on market value of suit property. The High Court held that the suit was for declaration of title and permanent injunction simpliciter, not for possession, and therefore court fee was payable under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 on the amount at which the relief was valued in the plaint. The order was set aside. (Paras 1-9)
B) Court Fees Act - Valuation - Section 6(iv)(j) Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - In a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff is not required to pay court fee on the market value of the property. The court fee is payable on the amount at which the relief is valued in the plaint, subject to scrutiny by the court. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in directing the plaintiffs to pay court fee on the market value of the suit property under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) CPC, when the suit is for declaration of title and permanent injunction simpliciter and not for possession.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the order dated 5 March 2022 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, and directed the trial court to decide the issue of valuation and court fee afresh after hearing the parties, in accordance with law. The court held that the suit was for declaration and injunction simpliciter, not for possession, and court fee was payable under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) CPC
- Section 6(iv)(j) Bombay Court Fees Act
- 1959
- Suit for declaration and injunction simpliciter
- Court fee on market value
- Rejection of plaint
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 255
WRIT PETITION NO.3587 OF 2022
Mr. Jaydeep S. Deo for Petitioners, Mr. Aditya Barthakar i/b. Mr. Paresh M. Pote for Respondents
Smt. Kamal Hiraman Hole, Sou Sunanda Arun Bhujbal, Sou Surekha Satish Raskar
Atrium Holmes Llp, Shri Girish Madhukar Rathi, Shri Rajesh Shriram Kasat, Shri Kamalbhai Jeshtaram Kapadia, Shri. Dharmendra Labhshankar Joshi, Shri. Prakash Mugatlal Dev, M/s Kasat Securities Pvt Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Writ Petition challenging an order of the trial court directing payment of court fee on market value of suit property under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) CPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners/Plaintiffs sought to set aside the order dated 5 March 2022 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, allowing the application of Defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) CPC and directing payment of court fee on market value.
Filing Reason
The trial court allowed the defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) CPC, directing the plaintiffs to pay court fee on the market value of the suit property, which the plaintiffs challenged as erroneous.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune) passed order dated 5 March 2022 allowing the application of Defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) CPC and directing the plaintiffs to pay court fee on the market value of the suit property.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in directing the plaintiffs to pay court fee on the market value of the suit property under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) CPC, when the suit is for declaration of title and permanent injunction simpliciter and not for possession.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners/Plaintiffs argued that the suit was for declaration of title and permanent injunction simpliciter, and they were in possession, so court fee was payable under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 on the amount at which the relief was valued in the plaint, not on market value.
Respondents/Defendants argued that the suit was undervalued and the plaintiffs were required to pay court fee on the market value of the property.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction simpliciter, where the plaintiff is in possession, the court fee is payable under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 on the amount at which the relief is valued in the plaint, and not on the market value of the property. The trial court's direction to pay court fee on market value under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) CPC was erroneous.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition, Petitioners/Plaintiffs have challenged order dated 5 March 2022 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune thereby allowing the application filed by Defendant no.1 under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and directing Petitioners/Plaintiffs to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit property to the extent of their share.
The suit is for declaration of title and permanent injunction simpliciter. The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that they are in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the suit is not a suit for possession. The court fee is payable under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 on the amount at which the relief is valued in the plaint.
Procedural History
The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction simpliciter. The defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) CPC, which was allowed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune on 5 March 2022, directing the plaintiffs to pay court fee on the market value of the suit property. The plaintiffs challenged this order by filing the present Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 7 Rule 11(b), Order 7 Rule 11(d)
- Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959: Section 6(iv)(j)
