In CS(OS) 58/2021-DEL HC- Nature of relief is determinative of court fee payable;  Where objective standard exists which enables plaintiff and Court to value relief correctly, then Court can direct plaintiff to value relief accordingly: Delhi HC
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna [10-10-2022]

 

Read Order: MR. SANDIP KUMAR ROY CHOUDARY AND ORS Vs. INDIAN PLUMBING ASSOCIATION 

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, October 11, 2022: The Delhi High Court has opined that where an objective standard exists which enables the plaintiff and the Court to value the relief correctly, in such cases the Court would be competent to direct the plaintiff to value the relief accordingly.

 A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishan dismissed the instant application instituted under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on behalf of the defendant for return of the plaint on the ground of suit valuation.

The Single Judge bench was of the view that it cannot be said nor has the defendant been able to demonstrate any malafide in fixation of the value of suit on which ad volarem Court Fee was paid in terms of the Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act. 

 It was  submitted in the application that the plaintiff  filed the suit for declaration for declaring the Resolution no. 4 passed in the National Executive Committee (NEC) Special Meeting no. IPA/NEC Spl. Mtg./02 held on December 11, 2020 as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and also for injunction for restraining the defendant Company from giving it effect and operation.

After considering the submissions of the parties, the Court noted that section 15 of the CPC provides that every suit is mandatorily to be instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. 

This Section is a rule of procedure and was incorporated in CPC so that the different courts exercise their jurisdiction as per law and no single court is overcrowded.

Further reliance  was placed on the cases namely Tara Devi v. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, Abdul Hamid Shamsi v. Abdul Majid and Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. v. Vimla Pannalal .

It may thus be concluded that where an objective standard exists which enables the plaintiff and the Court to value the relief correctly, in such cases the Court would be competent to direct the plaintiff to value the relief accordingly.

In view of the above stated precedents, the Court noted that it is the nature of relief which is determinative of the court fee payable. If there exists an objective standard to calculate the valuation of relief, then court fee must be paid on such valuation as may be made for the purpose of suit valuation, the Court observed. 

 However, when the relief cannot be quantified as in the case of injunction, the law gives discretion to the party to value it as per its own estimation. Having regard to the Section 15 of CPC, though the suit should be filed in the Court of lowest grade, but once the discretion as granted by law, is exercised by a party, it should not be lightly disturbed or substituted by the Court unless it is found to be fixed arbitrarily and with the malafide intention such as “Forum Shopping” and such like other reasons, the Court noted. 

In furtherance of the same, the Court noted that it cannot be said nor has the defendant been able to demonstrate any malafide in fixation of the value of suit on which ad volarem Court Fee was paid in terms of the Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act. The present application was hence, without merit and was dismissed.