High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal Against Rejection of Plaint for Non-Payment of Court Fee in Declaration Suit — Trial Court Directed to Accept Court Fee and Proceed with Suit on Merits. The Court held that rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC is not automatic and plaintiff must be given opportunity to pay deficit court fee before rejection.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 79
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, plaintiff in O.S. No.7602/2013, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant regarding suit schedule property. During pendency, the plaintiff sought amendment to convert the suit into one for declaration of title and injunction, which was allowed on 02.07.2018. The plaintiff filed an amended plaint with a fresh valuation slip. Based on the valuation, the Trial Court directed the plaintiff to pay deficit court fee. However, the plaintiff failed to pay the court fee, leading to the Trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC on 21.11.2019. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 CPC to recall the rejection order, which was dismissed on 04.01.2020. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed this appeal. The High Court noted that the respondent was served but absent. The Court observed that the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) is not automatic and the court must give an opportunity to pay the deficit court fee. Since the plaintiff expressed readiness to pay the court fee, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and order, allowing the appeal. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to accept the court fee from the plaintiff and proceed with the suit on merits. The High Court also directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously within six months.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC - Deficit Court Fee - Opportunity to Pay - The Trial Court rejected the plaint for non-payment of court fee after amendment of plaint converting suit from injunction to declaration. The plaintiff had furnished valuation slip but did not pay the deficit court fee. The High Court held that rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) is not automatic and the court must give an opportunity to pay the deficit court fee before rejecting the plaint. Since the plaintiff expressed readiness to pay the court fee, the rejection was set aside and the matter remanded. (Paras 1-10)

B) Civil Procedure - Recall of Order - Section 151 CPC - Inherent Powers - The Trial Court dismissed the application to recall the order rejecting the plaint. The High Court held that the Trial Court ought to have considered the application on merits, especially when the plaintiff was ready to pay the court fee. The order dismissing the application was set aside. (Paras 1-10)

C) Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - Suit for Declaration - Section 24(b) - Court Fee - When a suit for injunction is amended to include declaration of title, the plaintiff must pay court fee under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 based on the value of the property. The Trial Court directed payment of deficit court fee based on valuation slip. (Paras 4-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC for non-payment of court fee without giving sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee, and whether the subsequent order dismissing the application to recall the rejection order was correct.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 21.11.2019 rejecting the plaint and the order dated 04.01.2020 dismissing the application to recall the rejection order are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to accept the court fee from the plaintiff and proceed with the suit on merits. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously within six months.

Law Points

  • Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC for non-payment of court fee is not automatic
  • court must give opportunity to pay deficit court fee before rejecting plaint
  • Suit for declaration of title and injunction requires payment of court fee under Section 24(b) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act
  • 1958
  • Amendment of plaint converting suit from injunction to declaration necessitates fresh valuation and payment of deficit court fee
  • Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC applies only when plaintiff fails to pay court fee after being directed by court
  • Trial court must consider application to recall rejection order if plaintiff shows readiness to pay court fee
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (KAR) (02) 23

Regular First Appeal No. 47 of 2020 (DEC/INJ)

2023-02-01

Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar

Shri. Somashekar Angadi (for appellant)

Sri. N B Kumara Swamy

Raghavendra

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

Nature of Litigation

Regular First Appeal against rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC for non-payment of court fee and dismissal of application to recall the rejection order.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2019 rejecting the plaint and the order dated 04.01.2020 dismissing the application to recall the rejection order, and direction to the Trial Court to accept the court fee and proceed with the suit.

Filing Reason

The Trial Court rejected the plaint for non-payment of deficit court fee after amendment of plaint converting suit from injunction to declaration, and subsequently dismissed the application to recall the rejection order.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court allowed amendment of plaint on 02.07.2018, directed plaintiff to furnish amended plaint and fresh valuation slip, and based on valuation directed payment of deficit court fee. Plaintiff failed to pay, leading to rejection of plaint on 21.11.2019. Application to recall rejection order dismissed on 04.01.2020.

Issues

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC without giving sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee. Whether the Trial Court was correct in dismissing the application to recall the rejection order under Section 151 CPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) is not automatic and the court must give an opportunity to pay the deficit court fee before rejecting the plaint. Appellant submitted that he was ready and willing to pay the court fee and the Trial Court ought to have recalled the rejection order.

Ratio Decidendi

Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC for non-payment of court fee is not automatic; the court must give an opportunity to the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee before rejecting the plaint. If the plaintiff expresses readiness to pay, the court should recall the rejection order and proceed with the suit.

Judgment Excerpts

Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) is not automatic and the court must give an opportunity to pay the deficit court fee before rejecting the plaint. Since the plaintiff expressed readiness to pay the court fee, the rejection was set aside and the matter remanded.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed O.S. No.7602/2013 for permanent injunction. On 02.07.2018, amendment allowed converting suit to declaration. Plaintiff filed amended plaint and valuation slip. Trial Court directed payment of deficit court fee. Plaintiff failed to pay. On 21.11.2019, Trial Court rejected plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC. Plaintiff filed application under Section 151 CPC to recall rejection order, dismissed on 04.01.2020. Plaintiff filed Regular First Appeal No. 47 of 2020 before High Court of Karnataka.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 7 Rule 11(b), Order 6 Rule 17, Section 96, Section 151
  • Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958: Section 24(b)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Upholds Labour Court Award of Reinstatement with Back Wages for Workman Dismissed Without Enquiry. Termination of Mechanic Labour by Cement Factory Set Aside Due to Non-Compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal Against Rejection of Plaint for Non-Payment of Court Fee in Declaration Suit — Trial Court Directed to Accept Court Fee and Proceed with Suit on Merits. The Court held that rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rul...