P&H HC Dismisses Tenants’ Challenge to ₹50 Court Fee in ₹2.67-Crore Mesne-Profits Suit, Citing No Prejudice

The plaintiffs sued for mesne profits for the period of alleged unauthorised occupation of premises by the defendants after an eviction order.

They claimed a rate of ₹110 per square foot per month for premises measuring 4,500 square feet, but had affixed court fee of ₹50.

The defendants applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, arguing that ad valorem court fee was payable under Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1887.

The trial court dismissed the application, and the defendants challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The plaintiffs opposed the revision as not maintainable, relying on Bharpoor Singh and Another v. Lachhman Singh.

Article 227 of the Constitution confers supervisory jurisdiction, but a defendant ordinarily cannot maintain a revision against an order concerning court fee without showing prejudice or a jurisdictional issue; court fee is primarily a matter between the plaintiff and the State.

In Bharpoor Singh and Another v. Lachhman Singh, the Court held that such a revision would not be maintainable absent a question affecting the court’s jurisdiction, particularly where the plaintiff claims unliquidated damages and the court fee can be fixed after quantification.

The petitioners invoked Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1887, and Order VII Rule 11 CPC, but the Court did not decide the substantive adequacy of the court fee.

Applying Bharpoor Singh, the Court treated the challenge as one concerning court fee and considered whether the defendants had shown prejudice warranting supervisory interference.

It concluded that they had failed to demonstrate any legally cognizable prejudice from the impugned order.

Accordingly, the revision was not maintainable, and the Court did not determine whether the amount claimed required payment of ad valorem court fee under Section 7(i).

It clarified that its observations were confined to maintainability and did not prejudice the merits of the underlying dispute or either party’s rights and contentions; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.