AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rekha Mittal, J. - The present petition lays challenge to order dated 16.7.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaputthala whereby the application filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") for rejection of the plaint has been allowed on the ground that the petitioner has not paid court fee (ad valorem) on the amount sought to be recovered as he tried to avoid payment of court fee under the guise of framing the suit in the form of mandatory injunction.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while disposing of the application in favour of the respondents that the petitioner is liable to pay ad valorem court fee, no opportunity was allowed to the petitioner to make good deficiency of court fee. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay ad valorem court fee, therefore the order impugned may be set aside with a direction to the trial court to allow the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
Order 7, Rule 11 CPC provides for certain contingencies where the plaint shall be rejected. Clause (b) of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC provides that where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so.
A plain reading of clause (b) makes it evident that the court is required to give time to the plaintiff to correct the valuation. In the case at hand, the court while disposing of the application of the respondents holding that the petitioner is liable to pay ad valorem court fee did not provide an opportunity to the petitioner to correct the valuation. As the petitioner has expressed his willingness to pay the ad valorem court fee, the impugned order is liable to be modified to the extent that the petitioner is allowed 15 days time to pay court fee from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case, the petitioner pays the requisite court fee, the order rejecting the plaint would no longer subsist and the trial court shall proceed with the case, in accordance with law.
Before parting with this order, it is pertinent to mention that the petition has been disposed of without giving notice to the respondents to save them from inconvenience and unnecessary expenses. The respondents would be at liberty to file an appropriate application in case they have any grievance to express in the matter.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.