The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing a suit for non-payment of court fees. The Court held the impugned order was not illegal and did not warrant interference under Article 227.
Petitioner at liberty to ensure compliance with the impugned order within a fortnight.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 3298/2019
Smt. Kanwari Bai Alias Ramkanwari D/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 65 Years, W/o Shri Ramdev, By Caste Meghwal , R/o Village Samarba, Presently Residing At Village Onkarpura, Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner present in person. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
13/02/2019
Petitioner is aggrieved of the order made by the Court below dated 3rd January, 2019, on an application that was instituted by the respondent-defendant(s) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for the required court fee was not paid on the suit instituted, in accordance with The Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act of 1961’).
Petitioner present in person, but for the court fee that if computed as per provisions of the Act of 1961, would be exorbitant and she is a poor person; no other point was raised for consideration of this Court.
(2 of 3)
[CW-3298/2019]
Heard and considered.
A glance of impugned order dated 3rd January, 2019, would reflect that the application was instituted by the respondentdefendant(s) at the stage when the entire evidence was concluded and the matter was fixed for final hearing. However, the contents of the application turned out to be of substance and correct for the suit was not accompanied with the required court fees as contemplated under Section 38 of the Act of 1961, which reads
thus:
“38. Suits for cancellation of decrees, etc:-
(1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be,--
(a) if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed; and
(b) if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property.
(2) If the decree or other document is such that the liability under it cannot be split up and the relief claimed relates only to a particular item of property belonging to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's share in any such property, fee shall be computed on the value of such property or share or on the amount of the decree, whichever is less.
Explanation.-- A suit to set aside an award shall be deemed to be a suit to set aside a decree within the meaning of this section.”
The Court below while granting the application of the respondent-defendant(s) imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees
(3 of 3) [CW-3298/2019]
Five Thousand only/-), while directing the petitioner, reserving liberty to her to submit amended suit along with the required court fee in accordance with the Act of 1961, with a copy in advance to the respondent-defendant(s).
In the singular factual matrix of the case at hand and upon hearing the petitioner in person so also for the reasons recorded by the Court below while accepting the prayer of the respondentdefendant(s) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with the provisions of the Act of 1961; the impugned order dated 3rd January, 2019, suffers with no illegality much less material illegality so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, writ application fails, and is, hereby dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to ensure compliance of the impugned order, within a fortnight form today.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J
M.Meena/89
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 CPC when the impugned order dismissing a suit for non-payment of court fees under Order VII Rule 11 CPC appears legally sustainable.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Kanwari Bai Alias Ramkanwari
Udailal
Sub-Registrar, Bundi
State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Bundi
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
