9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit was undervalued by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fee. 2. Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the CPC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the suit was undervalued by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fee: The primary contention of the appellants was that the suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts was undervalued by the plaintiff-respondent. The suit was valued at Rs. 25 lakhs for jurisdiction purposes and Rs. 500 for court fee. The appellants argued that the relief sought was grossly undervalued and the plaint should be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the CPC. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, affirming the decision of the Single Judge, held that the suit was not undervalued. The Division Bench relied on a Full Bench decision in Smt. Sheila Devi and Ors. v. Shri Kishan Lal Kalra and Ors., which stated that Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act gives the plaintiff the right to place any value on the relief sought, subject to any rule made under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act. The court has no power to interfere with the plaintiff's valuation. The Supreme Court noted that for suits under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, the Legislature has left the valuation to the plaintiff due to the difficulty in laying down a standard of valuation. The Punjab High Court rules under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, applicable to Delhi, do not provide a standard for suits under Section 7(iv). The valuation for court fee purposes is determined by the Court Fees Act, meaning the plaintiff must value the relief under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act. In a suit for accounts, it is nearly impossible for the plaintiff to accurately value the relief until the accounts are taken. The court cannot determine the correct value at a preliminary stage and thus must accept the plaintiff's valuation tentatively. 2. Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the CPC: Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the CPC states that a plaint shall be rejected if the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within a time fixed by the court. The court must determine the correct valuation before requiring the plaintiff to correct it. In suits for accounts, it is typically not possible for the court to determine the correct valuation at a preliminary stage. The Supreme Court acknowledged divergent judicial opinions on whether the plaintiff can place any valuation on the relief in a suit for accounts. The court referred to the Five-Judge Bench decision in S.Rm. Ar. S.Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S.Rm.Ar.Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, which stated that in suits under Section 7(iv), the plaintiff has the option to value the claim due to the difficulty in precise valuation. The court also considered decisions where objective standards for valuation were available, such as Urmilabala Biswas v. Binapani Biswas and Ors. and Kishori Lal Marwari v. Kumar Chandra Narain Deo and Anr., where the court could determine the correct valuation based on objective standards. The Supreme Court reiterated that while the plaintiff cannot place an arbitrary valuation, if there are no objective standards or positive materials, the plaintiff's valuation must be accepted. In the present case, the plaintiff's statement estimating Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 30 lakhs was based on wishful thinking without supporting material, and thus not an objective standard for valuation. The court concluded that the valuation of the relief for rendition of accounts under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act was neither unreasonable nor demonstratively arbitrary. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000, affirming that the suit was not undervalued and the plaint should not be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the CPC.
|
