Gaurav Sehgal vs Sunil Sehgal and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 11042-CII of 2013:

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case:

Defendant No. 4 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 08.04.2013, passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-2) filed by defendants (petitioner and proforma respondents No. 1 to 3) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (in short - CPC) for directing contesting respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs to correct the valuation of the suit at Rs. 15 crores and to pay requisite ad valorem court fee thereon, failing which plaint (Annexure P-1) be rejected.

Defendants alleged in their application (Annexure P-2) that plaintiffs have inter alia claimed relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay Rs. 15 crores with interest to the plaintiffs and thus, it is virtually suit for recovery of the said amount, and therefore, the suit has to be valued at Rs. 15 crores and ad valorem court fee has to be paid accordingly, but the plaintiffs have valued the suit for purpose of mandatory injunction at Rs. 500 only and have paid court fee of Rs. 50/- only for the said relief, which is not correct.

Plaintiffs, by filing reply (Annexure P-3), contested the application and controverted the averments made therein. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs have claimed the relief of declaration, rendition of accounts and mandatory injunction and have accordingly valued the suit properly and have paid proper court fee thereon. It was alleged that mandatory injunction has been claimed only on the basis of rendition of accounts.

Learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 08.04.2013, has accepted the aforesaid stand of the plaintiffs and has, therefore, dismissed the application (Annexure P-2), filed by the defendants. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No. 4 only has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file, whereas none has appeared for contesting respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs in spite of service and adjournment.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the version of defendants pleaded in application (Annexure P-2), as noticed hereinbefore. There is considerable merit in the contention. The plaintiffs, besides seeking relief of declaration and rendition of accounts, have claimed decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay specific amount of Rs. 15 crores with interest to the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs have claimed relief of recovery of the said specific amount, and therefore, the suit is required to be valued for purpose of said relief at Rs. 15 crores and ad valorem court fee thereon is required to be paid. Approach of the trial court that the amount to be recovered by the plaintiffs would depend on evidence to be led, and therefore, court fee is not required to be paid at this stage, is completely perverse and illegal. Even in a suit for recovery of money, the plaintiff has to prove his case and only then the decree for the amount found due (not necessarily the amount claimed in the suit) can be passed, but for adjudication of the claim for the suit amount, the plaintiff has to pay ad valorem court fee thereon and not on the amount (which may, in some cases, be lesser than the amount claimed in the suit), for which the suit is ultimately decreed. In the instant case also, plaintiffs have claimed recovery of Rs. 15 crores from the defendants by couching the said relief in the form of mandatory injunction. However, for all intents and purposes, the suit is for recovery of said amount, besides relief of declaration and rendition of accounts. Consequently, for the aforesaid relief, the plaintiffs have to value the suit at Rs. 15 crores and have to pay ad valorem court fee thereon. Resultantly, I find that impugned order passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-2), filed by the defendants, is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 08.04.2013, passed by the trial court, regarding dismissal of application (Annexure P-2), is set aside. Application (Annexure P-2) filed by the defendants is allowed. Plaintiffs are directed to value the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction for the aforesaid relief of mandatory injunction (which shall be treated as relief of recovery of the aforesaid amount) at Rs. 15 crores and to pay ad valorem court fee accordingly. The plaintiffs are permitted to do the needful within three months from today, failing which the plaint shall stand rejected.