Jai Bharat Rice Mills v. District Food and Supplies Controller Palwal and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jan 2025CR/829/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; ad valorem court fee; quantification of amount due; plaint-only scrutiny at demurrer stage; declaration and mandatory injunction; recovery disguised as declaration; paddy; rice mills; unmilled paddy; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Alka Sarin, J.; decision dated 15.01.2025; CR-829-2017 (O&M); Tarawati 2015 (7) RCR (Civil) 783; Surender Kumar @ Salender Kumar 2023 (1) RCR (Civil) 845.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; impugned order dated 07.12.2016 set aside; pending applications, if any, disposed off. ¶¶25

Jai Bharat Rice Mills Vs District Food and Supplies Controller Palwal and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition allowed; impugned order dated 07.12.2016 set aside; pending applications, if any, disposed off.

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether, judging by the contents of the plaint alone (as is trite at the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stage), the amount due to the plaintiff-petitioner stood quantified so as to attract ad valorem court fee, or whether quantification was possible only after trial evidence. +1 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

At the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint are to be seen; where the plaint itself shows a dispute as to whether the amount is due to the plaintiff (about 2000 Qtls. of paddy unmilled, delivery short by 703.28 Qtls. explained as beyond the plaintiff's control), quantification of the amount due can only follow trial evidence, so ad valorem court fee cannot be demanded.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

The precedents relied on by the respondents were distinguishable: in Tarawati the suit was for recovery of a quantified ₹37,00,000/-, and in Surender Kumar recovery was sought as damages under the garb of declaration and mandatory injunction; in the present case, by contrast, there is a serious dispute qua the amount due, which can only be quantified once evidence is led by both parties, and the matter stands at the rebuttal-and-arguments stage.

¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Alka Sarin, J.) allows civil revision CR-829-2017 (O&M) and sets aside the order dated 07.12.2016 by which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed and the plaintiff-petitioner (M/s Jai Bharat Rice Mills) was directed to pay ad valorem court fee. Held: at the Order 7 Rule 11 stage only the contents of the plaint are to be seen; the plaint itself showed a live dispute as to whether the amount was due to the plaintiff — about 2000 Qtls. of paddy remained unmilled and delivery of less quantity (703.28 Qtls.) was explained as beyond the plaintiff's control — so the amount due stood unquantified until evidence was recorded. The suit was framed as one for declaration and mandatory injunction, not recovery. The precedents pressed by the respondents — Tarawati (recovery of quantified ₹37,00,000/-) and Surender Kumar @ Salender Kumar (recovery sought as damages under the garb of declaration and mandatory injunction) — were distinguished. The matter was noted to be at the fag end, fixed for rebuttal and arguments. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off.

¶1

259

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-829-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.01.2025

¶4

M/s Jai Bharat Rice Mills ... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

District Food & Supplies Controller Palwal & Anr ... Respondent(s)

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶8

Present : Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG Haryana for the respondents.

¶10

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶11

The present revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was allowed and the plaintiff-petitioner herein was directed to pay ad valorem court fee.

¶12

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that since only the operation of the impugned order was stayed, the trial continued the proceedings and now the case is at the stage of rebuttal and arguments and that the arguments have not been heard only because of the pendency of the present revision petition. The learned counsel would further contend that in the plaint a declaration has been sought that the amount is due towards the plaintiff-petitioner. It is further the contention that there is a dispute regarding the reason for the delivery of less quantity of paddy and as to whether the plaintiff-petitioner would be entitled to the amount as claimed, which would be a matter of evidence, and in view thereof it cannot

¶13

Yogesh Sharma 2025.01.16 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

¶14

CR-829-2017 (O&M)

¶15

-2-

¶16

be said that the amount has been quantified. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the suit is not for recovery but for declaration and mandatory injunction.

¶17

Per contra the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Tarawati Vs. Tej Ram @ Tej Pal & Anr. [2015 (7) RCR (Civil) 783] and Surender Kumar @ Salender Kumar Vs. Abid Khan & Ors. [2023 (1) RCR (Civil) 845] to contend that once the amount has been quantified, ad valorem court fee would have to be paid.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

It is trite that at the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint are to be seen. As per the plaint itself there appears to be a dispute as to whether the said amount is due towards to the plaintiff-petitioner as about 2000 Qtls. of paddy remained unmilled and in the plaint the plaintiff-petitioner has tried to explain the delivery of less quantity of 703.28 Qtls. as being beyond the control of the plaintiff-petitioner, hence, the quantification of the amount due would only be arrived at after the evidence has been gone into.

¶20

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents would not come to his aid as in the case of Tarawati (supra) it was a case of recovery of ₹37,00,000/- wherein the amount was quantified. In the case of Surender Kumar @ Salender Kumar (supra) it was held that under the garb of declaration and mandatory injunction, the petitioner therein was seeking recovery as damages. In the present case, as

¶21

Yogesh Sharma 2025.01.16 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

¶22

-3-

¶23

CR-829-2017 (O&M)

¶24

noticed above, there is a serious dispute qua the amount which is due towards the plaintiff-petitioner herein which can only be quantified once the evidence has been led by both the parties. In any case, the matter is at the fag end inasmuch as the same is now fixed for rebuttal and arguments.

¶25

In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.12.2016 is set aside. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶26

15.01.2025 ( ALKA SARIN ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE

¶27

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶28

Yogesh Sharma 2025.01.16 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh

Jai Bharat Rice Mills v. District Food and Supplies Controller Palwal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Bharat Rice Mills v. District Food and Supplies Controller Palwal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jawahar Singh Vs Narinder Singh

Ranjit Kaur Vs Raj Kumar & Ors.

Rajinder Singh Alias Joginder Singh Alias Ginder Singh and Another Vs Amar Singh

Zeba Ansari Vs State of Haryana and Another

Baldev Singh Vs Shivdeep Singh and Another

Oriental Insurance Company Vs Sukhwant Pal Kaur and Ors.