Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the Plaintiffs (Lalchand Kalro and others) against the Respondents (Neeraj Lalchand Kalro and others) challenging an order of the City Civil Court at Bombay regarding court fees. The Plaintiffs had filed S.C. Suit No. 439 of 2011 seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from entering or remaining upon the suit premises (Flat No. 42, Rijhumal Mansion, Peddar Road, Mumbai). The suit was based on the Plaintiffs' ownership of the flat, which was purchased by Plaintiff No. 1 and his brother in 1979, and later the brother's share was transferred to Plaintiff No. 1 in 1983. The Plaintiffs claimed they were members of the society and paid maintenance charges. The dispute arose due to estrangement between Respondent No. 1 (son of Plaintiffs) and Respondent No. 2 (his wife), leading to proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and a criminal case under Section 498A IPC. The Plaintiffs sought to restrain the Respondents from entering the flat. The Trial Court directed the Plaintiffs to pay court fees under Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, which applies to suits for possession. The Plaintiffs challenged this order, arguing that the suit was for injunction simplicitor and should be governed by Section 6(iv)(j) which prescribes a fixed court fee of Rs. 10. The High Court analyzed the plaint and found that the substantive relief was only for permanent injunction, with no prayer for declaration of title or possession. The court held that the suit fell under Section 6(iv)(j) and not Section 6(iv)(d), as the latter applies only when the plaintiff seeks possession or declaration of title. The court set aside the Trial Court's order, directed the Plaintiffs to pay court fees under Section 6(iv)(j), and ordered refund of any excess fees paid. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Court Fees - Injunction Suit - Section 6(iv)(j) Bombay Court Fees Act - The Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor restraining the Defendants from entering the suit premises. The Trial Court directed payment of court fees under Section 6(iv)(d) which applies to suits for possession. The High Court held that since the suit is for injunction simplicitor and does not seek declaration of title or possession, the proper provision is Section 6(iv)(j) which prescribes a fixed court fee of Rs. 10. The court set aside the Trial Court's order and directed refund of excess court fees. (Paras 2-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Plaintiffs are required to pay court fees under Section 6(iv)(j) or Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act for a suit seeking permanent injunction simplicitor.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Trial Court, and directed that the Plaintiffs pay court fees under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The court also directed the Trial Court to refund any excess court fees paid by the Plaintiffs. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Court fees for simplicitor injunction suit are governed by Section 6(iv)(j) of Bombay Court Fees Act
- not Section 6(iv)(d)
- when the suit does not seek declaration of title or possession
