Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, as power of attorney holders of Smt. Manisha Nimbalkar, filed Special Suit No. 325 of 2013 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, seeking declaration, cancellation of a sale deed dated 21.04.2006, restoration of possession, and permanent injunction. The respondents/defendants filed an application (Exhibit 14) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs had undervalued the suit property (valued at Rs. 34 lacs) and paid court fees only on Rs. 7,00,000. The trial court, instead of deciding the application on the issue of valuation and court fees, directed the plaintiffs to delete prayer clauses I and IV from the plaint. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The High Court heard both sides and examined the plaint, application, reply, and impugned order. The court noted that the plaintiffs had valued the suit for jurisdiction and court fees at Rs. 7,00,000 for cancellation of the sale deed as per the consideration mentioned therein. The trial court's order to delete prayers was held to be beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11, which only permits rejection of the plaint if the conditions are met, not deletion of prayers. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to decide the defendants' application afresh in accordance with law, after hearing both parties. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Valuation and Court Fees - The trial court, instead of deciding the defendants' application for rejection of plaint on the ground of improper valuation and court fees, directed the plaintiffs to delete certain prayer clauses. Held that such a direction is beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 and the court must first adjudicate the valuation issue. (Paras 4-8)
B) Court Fees - Valuation of Suit - Section 6(iv)(j) of Maharashtra Court Fees Act - Suit for Cancellation of Sale Deed - The plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs. 7,00,000 for cancellation of sale deed based on consideration mentioned therein. The trial court's direction to delete prayers was held to be premature and without proper inquiry. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could direct the plaintiffs to delete prayer clauses in the plaint without first deciding the issue of valuation and court fees under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 27.06.2014 passed by the trial court, and directed the trial court to decide the defendants' application (Exhibit 14) afresh in accordance with law after hearing both parties. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Section 6(iv)(j) of Maharashtra Court Fees Act
- Suit Valuation Act
- valuation for jurisdiction and court fees
- power of trial court to direct deletion of prayers
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 86
Writ Petition No. 1150 of 2014
Mr P. N. Shende for petitioners, Mr D. G. Paunikar for respondents
Lokesh son of Ramraoji Navghare and Rajesh son of Prabhakar Kadam (constituted Power of Attorney Holders of Smt Manisha w/o Surendra Nimbalkar)
Janardhan son of Haribhau Bhisikar and Smt Rukhmini wife of Janardhan Bhisikar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging trial court's order directing deletion of prayer clauses in a suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed, restoration of possession, and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the trial court's order directing deletion of prayer clauses I and IV from the plaint.
Filing Reason
The trial court, instead of deciding the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on ground of improper valuation and court fees, directed the plaintiffs to delete certain prayer clauses.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed an order directing deletion of prayer clauses I and IV from the plaint.
Issues
Whether the trial court could direct the plaintiffs to delete prayer clauses without first deciding the issue of valuation and court fees under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the trial court cannot revise the valuation put by the plaintiff and that the case falls under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, relying on Inderlal Panwarmal v. Khialdas.
Respondents contended that the suit was undervalued and the trial court's order was correct.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court, while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, cannot direct the plaintiff to delete prayer clauses from the plaint. The court must first decide the issue of valuation and court fees as raised in the application, and if the plaint is found to be undervalued, it may reject the plaint or grant an opportunity to correct the valuation, but cannot order deletion of prayers.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned trial Judge instead of deciding the question as to whether petitioners/plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction of court and for payment of court fees, directed plaintiffs to delete prayer clauses I and IV contained in the plaint.
It was not open to the trial Court to revise the valuation which the petitioner has put in its plaint and the case clearly falls within Section 6 (iv) (j) of the Act.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed Special Suit No. 325 of 2013 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. Respondents filed application (Exhibit 14) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. Trial court passed order directing deletion of prayer clauses I and IV. Petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 1150 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11
- Maharashtra Court Fees Act: Section 6(iv)(j)
- Suit Valuation Act:
