High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of Plaint for Non-Payment of Court Fees in Suit for Declaration and Injunction. Court holds that Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC applies when deficit court fees are not paid within the time granted by the court, and the suit is properly rejected.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 106
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners (defendants in the suit) challenged the order of the trial court rejecting the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.545 of 2006 filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) for declaration and injunction. The trial court had directed the plaintiffs to pay deficit court fees by a specified date, but the plaintiffs failed to do so. Consequently, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing both sides, upheld the rejection, holding that the trial court had correctly applied the provision. The court noted that the plaintiffs had been given time to pay the deficit court fees and their failure to comply within that time left no option but to reject the plaint. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC - Deficit Court Fees - The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The trial court directed payment of deficit court fees by a specified date. The plaintiffs failed to pay within that time. The court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c). The High Court upheld the rejection, holding that once the court grants time for payment of deficit court fees and the plaintiff fails to comply, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The court has no discretion to extend time beyond what is granted. (Paras 3-8)

B) Court Fees Act, 1870 - Suit Valuation - Deficit Court Fees - The plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs. 200/- for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. The trial court found the valuation to be inadequate and directed payment of additional court fees. The High Court affirmed that the trial court has the power to determine proper valuation and require payment of deficit court fees. (Paras 3-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for non-payment of deficit court fees within the time granted by the court.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC
  • Court Fees Act
  • 1870
  • rejection of plaint for non-payment of deficit court fees
  • discretion of court to grant time for payment
  • mandatory rejection upon failure to pay within granted time
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 16

Writ Petition No.269 of 2013

2013-07-26

R.G. Ketkar

Mr. M.P. Tripathi for petitioners, Mr. G.V. Mohekar for respondents

Bhaskar s/o. Subrav Jagtap, Sudhakar s/o. Pandhari Jagtap, Bhagwat s/o. Mahadu Jagtap

Pandurang s/o. Baburao Jagtap, Shrimant s/o. Chandrabhan Jagtap

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for declaration and injunction

Remedy Sought

Petitioners (defendants) sought to challenge the order rejecting the plaint for non-payment of deficit court fees

Filing Reason

The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC for non-payment of deficit court fees within the time granted

Previous Decisions

The trial court directed payment of deficit court fees by a specified date; plaintiffs failed to pay; plaint rejected

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC for non-payment of deficit court fees within the time granted.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint as the plaintiffs had not been given sufficient opportunity to pay the deficit court fees. Respondents supported the trial court's order, contending that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the court's direction to pay deficit court fees within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC, if the plaintiff fails to pay the deficit court fees within the time granted by the court, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The court has no discretion to extend time beyond what is granted, and the rejection is mandatory upon non-compliance.

Judgment Excerpts

A short but interesting question arises in the present petition. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') instituted Regular Civil Suit No.545 of 2006 on 13th Sept...

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.545 of 2006. The trial court directed payment of deficit court fees. Plaintiffs failed to pay within the time granted. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC. The defendants (petitioners) challenged this order by way of Writ Petition No.269 of 2013 before the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11(c)
  • Court Fees Act, 1870:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of Plaint for Non-Payment of Court Fees in Suit for Declaration and Injunction. Court holds that Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC applies when deficit court fees are not paid within ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Remand Order in Divorce Case — Remand Without Deciding Merits Not Permissible Under Order 41 Rule 23A CPC. Appellate Court Must First Reverse Decree on Merits Before Remanding Under Order 41 Rule 23A of Code ...