In CR-4080-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Merely by terming counter-claim as suit for declaration or simply because agreements were executed through GPA holder, defendant cannot avoid payment of ad valorem court fee: P&H HC
Justice Alka Sarin [27-09-2022]

Read Order: Rajinder Kaur v. Prem Kumar Gupta and Others 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, September 28, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that merely by terming the counter-claim, a suit as for declaration, the defendant cannot avoid the payment of the ad valorem court fee. 

The Bench of Justice Alka Sarin further held,  “Order 8 Rule 6A(2) states that a counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgement. Order 8 Rule 6A(4) states that the counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to the plaints, which would necessarily entail the payment of court fee.”

Additionally, the Bench also opined, 

“Further, simply because the agreements were executed through GPA holder, which fact is not denied in the present case, the defendant-petitioner cannot avoid the payment of ad valorem court fee. The acts done by the attorney would be considered as binding on the defendant-petitioner.”

In this case, the petitioner (defendant in the original suit) was liable to pay an ad-valorem court fee on the counter-claim filed by her. Hence, the present revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the above order.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the defendant-petitioner was not liable to pay ad valorem court fee as she, being the defendant in the suit, only filed a counter-claim and thus, no ad valorem court fee was needed to be paid on the counter-claim. 

After hearing the parties and perusing the relevant provisions of law governing counter-claim (Order 8 Rule 6A, CPC), the Court observed that as per Order 8 Rule 6A(2), CPC, a counter-claim has the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgement. Order 8 Rule 6A(4) states that the counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to the plaints, which would necessarily entail the payment of the court fee, the Court added. 

Further, Justice Sarin opined that merely by terming the counter-claim suit as for declaration, the defendant-petitioner cannot avoid the payment of the ad valorem court fee. 

Adverting to the present case at hand, the Court observed that the defendant-petitioner was an executant of the agreements to sell through her GPA holder. Though the counter-claim was filed for a declaration to the effect that the alleged agreements to sell were illegal, null and void, however, the Bench was of the view that in effect what the defendant-petitioner was seeking was for cancellation of the said agreements to sell. 

“Further, simply because the agreements were executed through GPA holder, which fact is not denied in the present case, the defendant-petitioner cannot avoid the payment of ad valorem court fee. The acts done by the attorney would be considered as binding on the defendant-petitioner”, the Court asserted. 

Holding the revision petition to be devoid of any merit, the Court dismissed the revision petition.