9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the matrimonial house i.e. Flat No. 705, 7th Floor, Saba Apartment D-3, Sector 44, Noida, U.P. and from dispossessing the respondent/plaintiff therefrom; (iii) permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from misusing the writings, photographs and videos of the respondent/plaintiff in their possession; and, (iv) for damages/compensation for ruining the life of the respondent/plaintiff. 3. The appellants/defendants applied under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint contending that though the respondent/plaintiff, in the body of the plaint, had sought the relief of recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 5 crores but in the prayer paragraph had not mentioned the amount of the damages claimed, to overcome the objection of the court fees; that the respondent/plaintiff having not paid the ad valorem court fees on the damages claimed of Rs. 5 crores, the plaint was liable to be returned/rejected. 4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said application of the appellants/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, observing/holding: (i) that the respondent/plaintiff having chosen not to claim damages of Rs. 5 crores in the relief paragraph, may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants/defendants sought rejection of the plaint against the respondent/plaintiff. It merely defers the decision thereon. We thus enquired from the counsel for the appellants/defendants, as to how this appeal is maintainable. 7. However, before the counsel for the appellants/defendants could respond, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff informed, that after the impugned order, vide order dated 29th January, 2014 in the suit, issues have been framed and the Issue No. 2 framed as under: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of damages? If so, of what amount? OPP A copy of the said order is handed over in the Court. No issue has been framed on the objection of the appellants/defendants of valuation of the suit for the relief of damages or on the aspect of payment of court fees thereon. On the contrary, the order records the contention of the counsel for the appellants/defendants that the aforesaid Issue No. 2 does not arise. However, the learned Single Judge has disregarded the said objection for the reason of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC having been dismissed vide the order impugned therein and has recorded as under: The Court while dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants/defendants having not challenged the order dated 29th January, 2014, the same cannot be made the basis for deciding this appeal. 10. In our opinion, the question of payment of court fees cannot be deferred to the stage of final decision unless entails any factual adjudication in trial. The Division Bench of this Court, in Sahara India Airlines Limited Vs. R.A. Singh while setting aside an order of the Single Judge granting exemption to the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of damages from payment of court fees and directing that in case the plaintiff succeeded, court fees will be deducted from the decretal amount, held (i) that Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as applied to Delhi puts a complete embargo on the power of the Court to proceed upon with or act upon a document of any kind including a plaint in the suit unless it bears the prescribed court fees; (ii) though Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC empowers the Court to, in cases of grave injustice or hardship, extend time for payment of court fees, but neither the Court Fees Act nor the CPC empower the Court to grant exemption from payment of prescribed court fees; (iii) the law also does not provide for deferment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f makes, "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 ground for rejection of the plaint. The purport thereof is that the relief which is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees be not put to trial and should be rejected at the threshold only. The said right of a defendant to have the said relief rejected cannot be taken away by deferring a decision thereon to the stage of final adjudication. 13. The respondent/plaintiff, though in para 30 of the plaint has pleaded as under: 30. That the plaintiff is victim of acts of cruelty and atrocities inflicted on her by her husband and her in laws. The predicament and suffering to which the plaintiff has been subjected to by the defendants has created a feeling of worthlessness in her and adversely affected her confidence. The defendants have virtually made her an object of ridicule. That in the desperate circumstances, having been forsaken by the defendants and having lost everything status, dignity and peace, the plaintiff is filing the present suit for declaration, permanent injunction and damages ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el trial, also of the relief claimed which is otherwise barred by any law or which has not been valued for the purposes of court fees or jurisdiction or on which no court fees has been paid and rejection of plaint qua which relief does not affect the continuance of suit qua other reliefs which need to be put to trial. The said principle, in our opinion cannot compel putting to trial of the suit qua a segregable relief and qua which there is no properly constituted suit also before the Court. Reference to the newly added Sub-Rule (3) supra of Order IV Rule 1 is apposite in this respect also. It also cannot be lost sight of that the Courts today are overburdened and putting to trial of a relief claimed which ought to have been rejected at the threshold, is always at the cost of trial of other deserving cases. The evidence required to be led on the claim for damages/compensation would be entirely different from the evidence required qua the other reliefs claimed in the plaint and we see no reason to allow evidence to be recorded on the claim which otherwise ought to have been rejected. The Supreme Court in Abdul Gafur Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2008) 10 SCC 97 and the Division Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case, the grievance of the appellants/defendants is that the learned Single Judge has failed to pass an order directing payment of court fees. (II) Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. Vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express AIR 2006 SC 1828. Reliance is placed on para 11 of the judgment. However para 11 is concerned with disclosure of cause of action. It is not the case of the appellants/defendants that the plaint in the present case does not disclose a cause of action for the relief of recovery of damages/compensation. The contention is that the said relief has not been valued and no court fees have been paid thereon. The reliance on this judgment is thus misconceived. (III) Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj AIR 1987 SC 2085(1). Reliance is placed on paras 3&4 of the judgment which deal with valuation of the suit for the relief of declaration. Here, as aforesaid, we are concerned with the respondent/plaintiff having not valued the relief of recovery of damages/compensation and having not paid court fees thereon. The reliance on this judgment is also misconceived; (IV) M/s. Commercial Aviation and Travel Company Vs. Mrs. Vimla Pannalal AIR 1988 SC 1636 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
