2014 (7) TMI 1354 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of appeal - order of dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is appealable order or not - HELD THAT - The claim for damages is not such qua which enquiry is to be held nor are the damages claimed such as to which accounts are to be taken under the orders of the Court. It is for the respondent/plaintiff to quantify the damages claimed and prove the entitlement thereto. It was thus incumbent upon the respondent/plaintiff to quantify the damages/compensation for recovery of which the suit was filed and in the absence thereof no enquiry into the claim for damages can be conducted. Similarly if the respondent/plaintiff presses the claim for damages the respondent/plaintiff is also required to value the same for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction and which has also not been done. The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff does not controvert that ad-valorem court fees is payable on the damages so claimed. The respondent/plaintiff without appropriately valuating the suit for the relief of recovery of damages/compensation claimed and without quantifying the damages/compensation claimed and paying appropriate court fees thereon is not entitled to have the claim for damages/compensation adjudicated. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.
2. Payment of court fees on the claim for damages.
3. Maintainability of appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.
4. Partial rejection of the plaint.
5. Valuation of the suit for the relief of damages.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC:
The appellants/defendants sought the rejection of the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the grounds that the respondent/plaintiff had not paid the ad valorem court fees on the claimed damages of Rs. 5 crores. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application, observing that the main relief sought was the declaration of the Talaqnama as null and void, which was not barred by law. Additionally, the learned Single Judge noted that a part of the plaint could not be rejected, referencing Roop Lal Sathi Vs. Nachhattar Singh AIR 1982 SC 1559.

2. Payment of court fees on the claim for damages:
The appellants/defendants argued that the respondent/plaintiff had not quantified the damages in the prayer paragraph and had not paid the requisite court fees. The learned Single Judge dismissed this objection, stating that the respondent/plaintiff might not ultimately be able to claim damages due to the nature of the pleadings. The court held that the question of payment of court fees cannot be deferred to the final adjudication stage and must be addressed upfront, referencing Sahara India Airlines Limited Vs. R.A. Singh and the provisions of Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

3. Maintainability of appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966:
The court considered whether the appeal against the dismissal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was maintainable. It referenced Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania (1981) 4 SCC 8, which held that such an order, though keeping the suit alive, affects a vital right of the defendant and is thus appealable. The court found the appeal maintainable as the refusal to decide the objection on court fees and the deferment of the decision to the final adjudication stage adversely affected the appellants/defendants.

4. Partial rejection of the plaint:
The learned Single Judge held that partial rejection of the plaint was not permissible. However, the appellate court clarified that this principle is intended to prevent dissection of pleadings and does not apply when a specific relief claimed is not properly valued or lacks appropriate court fees. The court emphasized that the claim for damages, being distinct from other reliefs, should not be put to trial without proper valuation and payment of court fees.

5. Valuation of the suit for the relief of damages:
The respondent/plaintiff had not quantified the damages in the prayer paragraph and had not valued the suit for the relief of damages. The court held that it was incumbent upon the respondent/plaintiff to quantify the damages and pay the appropriate court fees. The court referenced the newly added Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order IV of the CPC, which mandates that a plaint must comply with the requirements of Order VI and Order VII, including the payment of court fees.

Conclusion:
The appellate court allowed the appeal, granting the respondent/plaintiff fifteen days to amend the plaint to quantify the damages and pay the appropriate court fees. If the respondent/plaintiff fails to do so, the relief claimed for recovery of damages/compensation and the issue framed thereon shall stand deleted. The appeal was disposed of without imposing any costs on the respondent/plaintiff.