S M GULATI Vs. DREAM LAND HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Registry has put up objection that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and proper court fee has not been paid on the plaint. Bawa Shiv Charan Singh, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, has argued that the proper court fee has been paid on the plaint. Paragraph-11 of the plaint deals with the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. For the relief of declaration the suit is valued at Rs.200.00 on which the court fee of Rs.20.00 has been paid. For the relief of mandatory injunction the suit is valued at Rs.l30.00 and Rs.l3 has been paid as court fee. For the relief of prohibitory injunction the suit is valued at Rs.l30.00 and court fee of Rs.l3.00 has been paid on the plaint thereby totalling court fee of Rs.46.00 .

(2.) For the purposes of jurisdiction and for the relief of declaration, the suit has been valued at Rs.6 lakhs, obviously to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that in terms of Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, he can value the relief to obtain a declaration for which he has valued the relief at Rs.200.00 . He has further contended that Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 provides that the court fee to be paid for the purposes of relief as well as jurisdiction has to be the same but exceptions have been made to this general Rule in view of the amendment in the Rules by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules which are adopted by this Court. In his support he has cited Rule-7 of the said Rules which reads as under -

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid Rule, learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that he can maintain his suit in this Court if subsequently after the evidence or otherwise this Court reaches to the conclusion that the suit is under-valued, the plaintiff will be entitled to have the value revised for the purposes of jurisdjction. Another arguments, which has been advanced bylearned counsel for the plaintiff, is that exceptin terms of subsection (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act where the value of the subject- matter has to be taken into consideration for fixing the court fee, this case would squarely fall outside the purview of sub-section (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act as the suit is not for possession of land, houses and gardens. In support of his arguments, he has also cited AIR 1978 Del 114, AIR 1971 Del 249, AIR 1983 Del 323, AIR 1987 SC 2085. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act read with the Suits Valuation Act and taking into consideration the Rules framed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and adopted by this Court in suits covered by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, which are with reference to any property, proviso will apply only if the valuation of the suit can be made in the manner provided by sub- section (v) of Section 7 of the said Act.