Full Judgment Text
2023 INSC 657
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. of 2023
(@ SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020)
B.P. Naagar & Ors. …. Appellant(s)
Versus
Raj Pal Sharma …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Leave granted.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
final order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the High Court of
Delhi, whereby it allowed C.M. (M) No.686 of 2019 and
C.M. (App.) No.20889 of 2019 and set aside the orders
dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019 passed by the Court of
Additional District Judge, II, Central Tis Hazari Courts,
Digitally signed by
Vijay Kumar
Date: 2023.07.28
17:52:08 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 1 of 30
New Delhi. The Defendant Nos. 5 to 9 in the suit are the
appellants herein and the plaintiff therein is the
respondent herein. It is to be noted that Annexure P-14,
Memorandum of Writ Petition, which culminated in the
impugned order, would reveal that it was filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,
‘CPC’), challenging the orders dated 01.07.2017 and
02.03.2019. Considering the rival contentions, it is only
apposite to refer to the orders dated 01.07.2017 and
02.03.2019 passed by the Trial Court to know their nature
for an appropriate disposal of this appeal.
2. Order dated 01.07.2017 passed by the Trial Court
in CS(OS) No.612960/2016, exhibited as Annexure P-7 in
the captioned appeal, would reveal that it was an order
passed in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11
CPC, moved on behalf of defendant No.5/ the second
appellant in the captioned appeal. In fact, the suit was
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 2 of 30
originally filed by the respondent herein before the High
Court viz., CS(OS) No.809/2011 for declaration and
cancellation of the gift deed dated 27.04.2010 and sale
deed dated 10.01.2011 and also for mandatory injunction
and permanent injunction. Originally prayers (a) to (e)
were sought for in the plaint. However, vide order dated
20.05.2015, the plaintiff/the respondent herein was
permitted by the High Court to abandon prayers (c) and
(d) made in the plaint and thus, the suit was pursued qua
prayers in (a), (b) and (e) only. Later, it was transferred
to the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Central, Tis
Hazari Court, New Delhi pursuant to the enhancement of
the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. In the
context of the contentions and the nature of the order
impugned, it is profitable to refer to prayers (a), (b) and
(e) in the plaint and they read thus:-
“(a) pass a decree of declaration and cancellation
thereby declaring and cancelling the gift deed dated
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 3 of 30
27.04.2010 which was registered as document no.
3890, entered in Additional Book No.1, Volume No.
3311 at pages 66 to 73 on 06.05.2010 in the office of
Sub-Registrar -I, Delhi executed by the defendant no.
1 in favour of the defendants no. 2 to 4 being illegal,
void, ineffective/inoperative and of no consequences.
(b) pass a decree of declaration and cancellation
thereby declaring and cancelling the sale deed dated
10.01.2011 which was registered as document No.
158 entered in Additional Book No. I, Volume No.
3671 at pages 109 to 121 on 10.01.2011 in the office of
Sub-Registrar I, Delhi by the defendant: no. 2 to 4 in
favour of the defendants no. 5 to 9 being illegal, void,
ineffective/inoperative and of no consequences.
(e) pass a decree for permanent and mandatory
injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants jointly and severally including against
their heirs, agents, employees assignees,
representatives, successors etc. thereby restraining
them from dispossessing the plaintiffs from their
respective front and rear portions at second & third
floors of the property No. E 173, Kamla Nagar, Delhi
more particularly shown in red colour in the side plan
filed with the plaint.”
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 4 of 30
3. In the application filed under Order VII Rule 11,
CPC, praying for rejection of the plaint before the Trial
th
Court it was contended by the 5 defendant/the second
appellant herein that the suit was not properly valued for
the purposes of Court fee and proper Court fee was not
paid. It was further contended therein that since the
plaintiff/the respondent herein had valued the suit, as is
evident from the plaint, at Rs.1 Crore he was required to
pay ad valorem Court fee on the said amount.
Obviously, the plaintiff/the respondent herein resisted
the prayer for rejection of the plaint and after a detailed
consideration based on the rival contentions raised, the
Trial Court passed order dated 01.07.2017 as under: -
“11. Since the suit has not been properly valued and
proper court fee has not been paid, therefore the
plaint deserves to be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule
11 CPC.
12. Accordingly, the application under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC deserves to be allowed. However time is
granted to the plaintiff till next date of hearing to
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 5 of 30
properly value the suit and make the payment of
deficient court fee.
13. Put up for further proceedings on 13.07.2017.”
4. Thus, obviously, even after holding that the suit
deserves to be rejected, as per the order dated
01.07.2017 the suit was ordered to be put up on
13.07.2017 for further proceedings. In the meanwhile,
the plaintiff/the first respondent herein moved four
applications under Order VI Rule 17, CPC, which are
exhibited in this appeal as Annexures P-8 to P-11, for
amending the plaint. Out of the said four applications,
two were disposed of based on the statement made on
behalf of the plaintiff. Later, applications dated
14.08.2017 and 28.02.2019, exhibited as Annexures P-10
and P-11 in this appeal, were taken up and were rejected
as per order dated 02.03.2019 (Annexure P-13 in this
appeal). After dismissing those applications filed under
Order VI Rule 17, read with Section 151, CPC for
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 6 of 30
amendment of the plaint as per Annexure P-12, a
separate order was passed on 02.03.2019 itself rejecting
the plaint by allowing the application filed by defendant
No.5/the second appellant herein, under Order VII Rule
11, CPC.
5. It is feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned
orders dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019 that the
respondent herein filed C.M. (M) No.686 of 2019 before
the High Court which was disposed of as per the
impugned order dated 02.12.2019. C.M. (App.) No.
20889 of 2019 is an application filed therein seeking
permission to amend the plaint. A bare perusal of the
impugned order would reveal that after taking note of
the fact that the application filed by the petitioner
therein/the respondent herein under Order VI Rule 17,
CPC for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed and
thereafter, the suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11,
CPC. The High Court observed that the main question
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 7 of 30
emanating for consideration in the said petition filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution is whether the suit
was to be valued and requisite Court fee was liable to be
paid or not. The High Court then, went on to observe
thus:- “The question as to whether ad valorem Court fees
required to be paid would be a question which is a mix
question of fact and law, inasmuch as if the plaintiff is a
party to the gift deed and sale deed, then Court fee is liable
to be paid but if the Plaintiff is not a party, no Court fee
would be liable to be paid.” After observing thus, it was
further held:- “Considering that factual evidence would be
required in this matter, it is directed that the Trial Court
shall frame an issue in respect of valuation of the suit,
which shall be adjudicated at the final stage. The
observations in the impugned order are accordingly set
aside. The plaintiff is directed to amend the suit, and the
suit shall proceed further. ”
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 8 of 30
6. We have referred to the orders dated 01.07.2017
and 02.03.2019 only to bring to light the nature of the
issues that fell for consideration of the High Court, in
exercise of the power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and ultimately culminated in the
order impugned and also the complexity of the legal
conundrum involved in the case. We will consider
appropriately, such issues a little later after referring to
the rival contentions and referring to the relevant
provisions of law.
7. The origin of the subject suit, as narrated by the
appellants, is adverted to hereunder for fitness of things.
The suit property i.e., House No.173, E. Block, Kamla
Nagar, New Delhi (225 Sq. yards) was originally owned
by Shri G.D. Mal and he, vide Will dated 18.06.1971
bequeathed the suit property in favour of his wife Pritam
Devi. After the death of Shri G. D. Mal his wife Smt.
Pritam Devi executed a registered gift deed dated
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 9 of 30
27.04.2010 in favour of her grandsons Shri Balraj Sharma,
Shri Hemant Parashar and Shri Rahul Parashar. Though
they were parties to this proceeding they were
subsequently deleted from the array of parties herein, as
per order dated 03.03.2021. Earlier, they executed sale
deed dated 10.01.2011 in respect of suit property in
favour of the appellants for a sale consideration of Rs.1
Crore. The further case is that respondent herein and
Shri Ram Pal Sharma, who was originally arrayed as the
second respondent and was deleted from the array of
parties as per order dated 03.03.2021, are the sons of late
Shri G.D. Mal and they filed a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction before the Trial Court for
declaring themselves as owners of the first and second
floors of the suit property but the same was subsequently
dismissed as withdrawn. The respondent herein and the
said Ram Pal Sharma then filed the subject suit originally
as C.S. (O.S.) No.809 of 2011, against the appellants
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 10 of 30
herein, seeking relief of permanent injunction/
declaration and cancellation of registered gift deed and
sale deed before the High Court and valued the suit for
the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. The
appellants herein who were the defendants therein then
moved an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC for
rejection of plaint on the ground of non-payment of
deficient Court fee by the plaintiff in terms of the
valuation of the suit made in the plaint, being, a sum of
Rs.1 Crore.
8. The respondent-plaintiff and his co-plaintiff
resisted the application contending that they being not
parties to the sale deed/transaction are not liable to pay
the Court fee for grant of relief of declaration. Later, they
filed an application under Order XIII Rule 10 read with
Section 151, CPC seeking permission to abandon
prayers at clauses “c and d” and the same was allowed
as per order dated 20.05.2015. It is at that stage that the
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 11 of 30
said suit, being C.S. (O.S.) No.809 of 2011 was
transferred from the High Court and was re-numbered,
as mentioned hereinbefore.
9. Now, the core contention raised by the appellants
to assail the order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the High
Court is that it was passed totally ignoring the legal effect
and impact of the order dated 01.07.2017 passed by the
Trial Court on the application of the fifth respondent/the
second appellant for rejection of the plaint under Order
VII Rule 11, CPC. As a matter of fact, it was allowed,
though time was granted to the plaintiff to make
appropriate valuation and to pay the Court fee, it was
further contended. A scanning of the said order dated
01.07.2017 would reveal that after holding that the said
application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, deserves to
be allowed, time was granted to the plaintiffs and it was
posted to 13.07.2017 only for further proceedings.
According to the appellants in the said circumstances, to
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 12 of 30
comply with the said order ad valorem Court fee at the
valuation of the suit shown in the plaint by the plaintiffs
themselves viz., Rs.1 Crore in terms of the provisions
under Rule 7 (4) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 ought to
have been paid instead of filing applications, four in
number, under Order VII Rule 17, CPC. Since two out of
the four applications were disposed of pursuant to the
submission made by the counsel for the plaintiffs and the
other applications were also liable to be disposed
of/dismissed on the same lines and that alone was done
rightly by the Trial Court. Those applications were filed
only to circumvent the order dated 01.07.2017, it was
further contended. Dismissal of the said applications
viz., Annexure P 10 dated 14.08.2017 and Annexure P 11
dated 28.02.2019 are legal and are not available to be
challenged in view of the fact that as per order dated
01.07.2017 the plaint itself was virtually rejected, it was
also contended. Above all, it was contended that
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 13 of 30
separate order dated 02.03.2019 was passed in respect
of the application filed by the fifth defendant viz., the
second appellant for rejection of the plaint, evidently
taking note of the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to
comply with the directions under order dated 01.07.2017
and to pay the balance Court fee. It was submitted that
in terms of Section 2 (2), CPC defining the expression
“decree”, the said definition would take in rejection of
plaint as well and, therefore, a substantive right to file an
appeal against the said order of rejection of plaint is
available under Section 96, CPC and when such a
substantive right to file an appeal is available under
Section 96, CPC, it is impermissible to avail the remedy
of revision under Section 115 of the CPC. For the same
reason, the right to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of
the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is also not available in such cases. It was also the
contention that a careful scanning of Annexure R-14,
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 14 of 30
Memorandum of Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution would reveal that there was no direct
challenge against the separate order dated 02.03.2019
passed rejecting the plaint though the same was
available to be challenged only by preferring a
substantive appeal under Section 96, CPC. It was further
contended that without a successful challenge against
the orders dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019, rejecting
the plaint, the question of consideration of amendment
would not arise in law. In short, the contention is that the
impugned order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the High
Court is unsustainable and liable to be reversed. To
buttress the various contentions to assail the order dated
02.12.2019 of the High Court, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants placed reliance on various decisions.
10. Resisting the contentions raised on behalf of the
appellants, learned counsel for the respondent
contended that the order impugned passed by the High
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 15 of 30
Court is perfectly legal and it calls for no interference in
exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The contention was that as per order dated 02.03.2019,
the Trial Court had first dismissed the applications for
amendment of the plaint and virtually, rejected it for non-
compliance with the directions issued under the earlier
order dated 01.07.2017 by not paying the ad valorem
Court fee. It was contended that a perusal of the order
dated 01.07.2017 would reveal that as per the same, the
Trial Court had inter alia allowed the respondent/plaintiff
to value the suit and to pay the requisite Court fee. It
was further submitted that a scanning of the order dated
01.07.2017 would show that though it was observed that
the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC deserved
to be allowed it was not actually allowed and at the same
time, time was granted to the plaintiff till the next date of
hearing to properly value the suit property and to make
payment of deficient Court fee. It was further submitted
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 16 of 30
by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that
as per the impugned order, the High Court had only
allowed the amendment sought for by the
respondent/plaintiff and directed the Trial Court to
frame an issue in respect of valuation of the suit and to
adjudicate the same at the final stage. It was also the
contention of the respondent that the order dated
01.07.2017, rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11,
CPC is not a decree within the scope of Section 2 (2) of
CPC as the twin ingredients to make the order rejecting
the plaint a decree is absent in the said order in view of
the lack of any conclusive determination of any of the
rights of the parties and more importantly, in view of
absence of order rejecting the plaint. The further
contention of the respondent-plaintiff is that the order
dated 02.03.2019 would reveal that the application for
amendment of the plaint filed under Order VI Rule 17,
CPC was dismissed by the Trial Court and dismissal of
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 17 of 30
application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17,
CPC, would not be a decree and therefore, appealable
under the provisions of Order XLIII, CPC. In such
circumstances, since no other remedy was available to
the respondent, the only remedy open to him was to
approach the High Court by way of the petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution. In short, the respondents
would contend that the impugned order of the High
Court dated 02.12.2019 is legal and, therefore, the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. A bare perusal of the impugned order of the High
Court would reveal that the sole reason assigned therein
is actually founded on the law regarding the requirement
or otherwise to pay ad valorem Court fee by a non-party
to a sale deed in respect of which a declaration is sought
by him. In fact, there is no conflict in view between the
courts below on that question. As a matter of fact, the
Trial Court took note of the position in regard to the said
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 18 of 30
question settled by this Court in the decision in Suhrid
1
Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh that a plaintiff
seeking a declaration in respect of a sale deed, to which
he is not a party, need not pay ad valorem fee on the
consideration amount mentioned in the deed and he
needs to pay only the fixed Court fee. However, even
after taking into account the said position of law the Trial
Court held the same inapplicable in the case on hand and
applied the law laid down in Gobind Gopal & Ors. v.
2
Banwari Lal and in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. All
India Bharat Sanchar Nigam Executives’ Association
3
(Regd.) & Ors. to hold that as the plaintiff himself
(respondent herein) valued the suit at Rs. 1 Crore under
Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 the case of the
plaintiff would not fall under any of the exceptions
provided under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
1
(2010) 12 SCC 112
2
AIR 1983 Del 323
3
(2006) 130 DLT 195
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 19 of 30
The Trial Court also took note of the fact that the plaintiff
(respondent herein) claimed the reliefs of both
‘declaration’ and ‘cancellation’, as can be seen from
paragraph 7 of the order dated 01.07.2017 of the Trial
Court. After taking such aspects into consideration and
applying the law laid down in Gobind Gopal’s case
(supra) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.’s case (supra)
and virtually, observing that the plaintiff was obliged to
value the suit for the purpose of Court fee and
jurisdiction identically except for Court Fees Act, 1870
the Trial Court held thus:-
“10. I am therefore of the opinion that the plaintiff
has not properly valued the suit for the purposes of
court fees. Either the plaintiff should have valued
the suit qua the relief of declaration at Rs. One Crore
for the purpose of both court fees and jurisdiction
(and paid ad valorem court fees) or he should have
valued it at Rs. 200/- (in case he claimed a bare
declaration as per the judgment of Suhrid Singh @
Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh) and filed the suit
before the Ld. Civil Judge.
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 20 of 30
11. Since the suit has not been properly valued
and proper court fee has not been paid, therefore
the plaint deserves to be rejected in terms of Order
7 Rule 11 CPC.
12. Accordingly, the application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC deserves to be allowed. However time
is granted to the plaintiff till next date of hearing to
properly value the suit and make the payment of
deficient court fee.
13. Put up for further proceedings on 13.07.2017.”
(Underline supplied)
12. We have referred to the order of the Trial Court
impugned before the High Court to point out that various
aspects of the matter arising from the application for
amendment of the plaint in view of the order dated
01.07.2017 were considered in detail by the Trial Court
and at the same time, without going into the sustainability
or otherwise such conclusions and findings, the High
Court as per the impugned order set them aside and
permitted the respondent to amend the plaint and
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 21 of 30
directed the Trial Court to frame an issue in respect of
valuation of the suit and to adjudicate it at the final stage.
13. In the wake of factual situation obtained as above it
is apposite to refer to certain relevant aspects. At the
outset, it is to be noted that what exactly was the
amendment sought for and permitted by the High Court
is not discernible from the impugned order. The petition
filed by the respondent herein/the plaintiff under Article
227 of the Constitution of India is available on record as
Annexure P14 and it would reveal the main prayer
(prayer ‘a’) made by the respondent-plaintiff as under:
“a) call for the records of the above-mentioned CS
No. 12960/2016 titled as Sh. Raj Pal Sharma & Anr.
Vs. Smt. Pritam Devi & Ors. which was pending in
the Ld. Court of Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, ADJ-11,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and
examine the impugned orders dated 01.07.2017
and 02.03.2019 and accept the present petition, and
restore the suit of plaintiff/ petitioner by allowing
the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with
Section 151 CPC for amendment of para 33 of plaint
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 22 of 30
qua court fee & jurisdiction and for deleting the
words ‘cancellation’ & ‘cancelling’ from prayer ‘A’ &
‘B’. Accordingly the application under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC filed by the respondent No. 5, be
dismissed;”
14. Thus, obviously, the respondent herein, as
petitioner, prayed before the High Court to allow the
application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section
151, CPC for amendment of para 33 of plaint qua Court
fee and jurisdiction and for deleting the words
‘cancellation’ and ‘cancelling’ from prayer paras ‘A’ and
‘B’ and accordingly, to dismiss the application filed by
th nd
the 5 respondent the 2 appellant herein under Order
VII Rule 11, CPC. The application dated 14.08.2017 filed
by the respondent herein/the plaintiff, produced as
Annexure P10, under Order VI Rule 17, CPC would
reveal the amendment sought for in paragraph 33 of the
plaint, as hereunder:
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 23 of 30
“33. That the value of the suit for the purpose of
Court Fee and jurisdiction for the relief of
declaration Rs. 200/- and for the relief of
permanent and mandatory injunction is Rs.
200/- and accordingly requisite court fee is paid
thereupon.”
15. Evidently, in the order of the Trial Court dated
01.07.2017 and in the subsequent order dated 02.03.2019
the decisions of the High Court of Delhi in Gobind
Gopal’s case (supra) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.’s
case (supra) were relied on /referred to and going by
those decisions a plaintiff is obliged to value the suit for
the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction identically
except for the exceptions provided under Section 7 of
the Court Fees Act, 1870. Contextually, it is profitable to
refer to the decision of this Court in S. RM. AR. S. SP.
Sathappa Chettiar v. S. RM. AR. RM Ramanathan
4
Chettiar whereunder this Court held that the question
4
AIR 1958 SC 245
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 24 of 30
what could be the value for the purpose of jurisdiction of
a suit of this nature had to be decided by reading Section
7(iv) of the Court Fees Act along with Section 8 of the
Suits Valuation Act. Paragraph 15 therein reads thus:-
“What would be the value for the purpose of
jurisdiction in such suits is another question which
often arises for decision. This question has to be
decided by reading Section 7 (iv) of the Act along
with Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. This
latter section provides that, where in any suits
other than those referred to in Court Fees Act
Section 7, paras 5, 6 and 9 and para 10 clause (d),
court fees are payable ad valorem under the Act,
the value determinable for the computation of
court fees and the value for the purposes of
jurisdiction shall be the same. In other words, so
far as suits falling under Section 7, sub-section
(iv) of the Act are concerned, Section 8 of the Suits
Valuation Act provides that the value as
determinable for the computation of court fees
and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall
be the same. There can be little doubt that the
effect of the provisions of Section 8 is to make the
value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 25 of 30
upon the value as determinable for computation
of court fees and that is natural enough. The
computation of court fees in suits falling under
Section 7 (iv) of the Act depends upon the
valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his
claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and
values his claim for the purpose of court fees, that
determines the value for jurisdiction. The value
for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must
no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the
value for court fees stated by the plaintiff that is of
primary importance. It is from this value that the
value for jurisdiction must be determined. The
result is that it is the amount at which the plaintiff
has valued the relief sought for the purposes of
court fees that determines the value for
jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa.
Incidentally we may point out that according to
the appellant it was really not necessary in the
present case to mention Rs. 15,00,000 as the
valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction since on
plaints filed on the Original Side of the Madras
High Court prior to 1953 there was no need to
make any jurisdictional valuation.”
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 26 of 30
16. But then in the petition filed before the High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (Annexure
P14) the respondent herein, who was the petitioner
therein relied on the decision of the High Court of Punjab
5
& Haryana in Bawa Bir Singh v. Ali Niwan Khan to
canvass the position that in a suit falling under Section
7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act one value is given for the
purpose of Court fee and another different value for the
purpose of jurisdiction, then it is the value for purpose of
Court fee which has to be taken for purpose of
jurisdiction and different value mentioned for purpose of
jurisdiction has to be ignored.
17. As noted earlier, Annexure P10 would reveal that
the amendment sought for and going by the same, the
values for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction are
the same. It is relevant to note that as per order dated
01.07.2017, the Trial Court held that the case of the
5
AIR 1964 Punjab 381
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 27 of 30
plaintiff/the respondent herein did not fall in any of the
carved out exceptions in Section 7 of the Court Fees Act,
and furthermore, it would reveal that the very contention
of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the suit was
valued in terms of Section 7 (vi) (d) read with entry 17(vi)
of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act as applicable to Delhi
and this contention was repelled.
18. It is to be noted that despite all the aforesaid
circumstances and involvement of many questions of
relevance and importance, without even referring to the
amendment sought before the High Court, it only held
that the petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint. If
what was actually prayed by this plaintiff/respondent
before the Trial Court by way of amendment was the one
(referred to hereinbefore) which stands granted as per
the impugned order of the High Court, then a question
may crop up whether the question of ad valorem Court
fee would survive for consideration thereafter. Needless
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 28 of 30
to say, another question may also crop up for
consideration whether the Court of Additional District
Judge-II, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi could proceed
with the suit further when once the amendment is
allowed as above and whether, the suit, thereafter, be
presented before the lowest court having the
jurisdiction. In other words, whether the court of
Additional District Judge-II, Central, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi could proceed to frame the issues and adjudicate
them, thereafter.
19. A perusal of impugned order of the High Court
would reveal that none of the above and other allied
questions were considered by the High Court though
such aspects were gone into by the Trial Court.
20. In the circumstances, we do not think it proper to
consider all the said questions in this appeal and we
think that it is an eminently fit case where we should
remand the matter for fresh consideration by the High
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 29 of 30
Court. Ordered accordingly. To enable the High Court
to do so, the impugned order is set aside and we leave
liberty to both sides to take all legally available
contentions before the High Court, for a proper decision
in the matter.
21. Taking into account the fact that the suit is
originally of the year 2011 we request the High Court to
dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably, within a
period of six months. We make it clear that we have not
made may observation on merits.
22. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There is no
order as to costs.
……………………, J.
(C.T. Ravikumar)
……………………, J.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia)
New Delhi;
July 28, 2023
SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 30 of 30