Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society Limited, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 155 of 2011 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, seeking a declaration that an advertisement dated 22.8.2010 published by the Municipal Corporation, Amravati, claiming to have taken possession of the suit plots, was arbitrary and illegal. In the alternative, the petitioner sought a declaration that if the Corporation had presumptive possession, it was illegal and possession should be restored. The petitioner also sought a permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from dealing with the suit plots. The respondent Corporation filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the petitioner was liable to pay 1/4th ad valorem court fee under Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, as the value of the suit plots exceeded Rs. 30 lacs. The trial court partly allowed the application, directing the petitioner to value the suit correctly under Section 6(iv)(d) and pay the requisite court fee within one month. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The High Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the plaint, held that the suit was not for possession but for a declaration with a consequential injunction. The court noted that the petitioner had valued the suit for jurisdiction and court fee under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Act, which applies to suits for declarations with or without consequential relief. The court found that the trial court had misread the plaint and erred in directing ad valorem court fee. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law, treating the valuation under Section 6(iv)(j).
Headnote
A) Court Fees - Suit Valuation - Declaration and Injunction - Section 6(iv)(j) Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 - The petitioner filed a suit for declaration that the respondent Corporation's advertisement claiming possession of suit plots was illegal, and for permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from dealing with the plots. The trial court directed payment of ad valorem court fee under Section 6(iv)(d). The High Court held that the suit was not for possession but for a declaration with consequential injunction, and the valuation for court fee was not required to be ad valorem. The court set aside the trial court's order and directed that the suit be valued under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Act. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee under Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, instead of a fixed court fee under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Act, for a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction regarding possession of plots.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the trial court dated 27th June 2014, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law, treating the valuation under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.
Law Points
- Court fee valuation
- Suit for declaration and injunction
- Section 6(iv)(j) Bombay Court Fees Act
- 1959
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Plaint rejection
