Allowed

Ishwar Chand Jangid v. Manoj Kumar Sharma

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2024CR/57/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Bench allowed a civil revision petition against a trial court order that rejected an application for dismissal of a plaint due to deficient court fee. The High Court held that where the plaintiff specifically prays for specific performance with a quantified consideration, court fee must be paid on that amount under Section 40(a) of the Act, as opposed to Section 45 or a later evidence-

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is allowed; the trial court's finding that court fee is subject to evidence is quashed; the plaintiff is directed to pay deficit court fee under Section 40(a).

Ishwar Chand Jangid Vs Manoj Kumar Sharma — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:1493]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 57/2023

¶4

Ishwar Chand Jangid S/o Late Shri Mangi Lal, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Jhalra Talab,maliyon Ka Mohalla, Makrana, District Nagaur. (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kishan Sharma, Resident Of Vasundhara Nagar, Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Narendra Thanvi
	Mr. Mahendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Devesh A. Purohit

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

10/01/2024

¶13

An application for recalling of interim order dated 19.05.2023 has been preferred on behalf of the respondent with the submission that although a caveat was filed in the matter, name of the counsel was not reflected in the cause list and hence, the interim order was passed without hearing him.

¶14

On the said application been filed, vide order dated 03.11.2023, this Court directed the office to make a report regarding the alleged caveat dated 15.05.2023. In compliance thereof, a report dated 07.11.2023 has been filed by the concerning clerk with a specific submission that no caveat was filed in the present matter. It has further been submitted that the Stamp Reporter section also informed that no caveat has been filed in the matter.

[2024:RJ-JD:1493]

[CR-57/2023]

(2 of 6)

Learned counsel for the respondent, today, reiterated the fact of filing of the caveat and even supplied the inward number of the caveat to be 843/2023 dated 16.05.2023.

¶19

In view of the same, office is directed to file a specific report regarding the said inward number and the document registered on the said inward number.

¶20

Let the report be made and placed on record within three weeks.

¶21

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Makrana in Civil Original Case No.17/2023 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC as preferred by the defendant has been rejected.

¶22

The averment made in the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC by the defendant was that the plaintiff had prayed for relief of specific performance of contract; for grant of stone/raw material of a valuation of Rs.1,19,74,254/-; and further for a relief of injunction. As the valuation of the consideration amount was quantified and specified and the plaintiff prayed for a relief in accordance with the said valuation, the court fee ought to have been paid on the said valuation of Rs.1,19,74,254/- but the court fee of Rs.300/- only was paid by the plaintiff which is deficient. With the said submissions, a prayer for rejection of the plaint was made.

¶23

However, the application has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that the issue of valuation and court fee is a subject matter of evidence and could be decided only after the issue being framed and evidence being led on the same.

[2024:RJ-JD:1493]

[CR-57/2023]

(3 of 6)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the plaintiff specifically falls under Section 40(a) of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act of 1961’) and hence, the plaintiff was required to pay the court fee on the consideration amount.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the case falls under Section 40(e) of the Act of 1961 wherein it has been provided that when the consideration has no market value, the court fee would be payable in terms of Section 45 of the Act of 1961 and as Section 45 of the Act of 1961 provides for a court fee of Rs.300/- on the valuation exceeding Rs.10,000/-, the same has correctly been paid.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent also raised an objection that the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was not maintainable and the valuation/court fee could have been determined by the Court only in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1961 and as no application under Section 11 of the Act of 1961 had been preferred, the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC could not have been entertained for the said purpose.

¶30

In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ratan Devi (Smt.) vs. Smt. Gawra Devi & Ors.; AIR 2015 Raj 29.

¶31

Responding to the objection raised, learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submitted that the application as preferred was not an application simplicitor under Order VII Rule 11, CPC but was under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d), CPC. Order VII Rule 11(d), CPC specifically provides for determination of the court fee.

[2024:RJ-JD:1493]

[CR-57/2023]

(4 of 6)

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶36

It is the settled proposition of law that the suit is to be valued on basis of the reliefs as prayed for in the suit. The reliefs as prayed for in the present suit are as under:

¶37

“izkFkZuk oknh fuEuor gS %&

¶38

1- lafonk dh fofufnZ’V ikyuk dh fMØh oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh ds foi{k esa bl vk”k; dh tkjh QjekbZ tkos fd izfroknh bdjkjukek fnuk¡d 17&04&2019 dh ikyuk esa oknh dks [kku la[;k 42D pd Mqaxjh jsUt edjkuk esa fLFkr izfroknh ds mrjh fgLls ds ik;s cuki 25 fQV X 200 fQV esa ls fudyus okys iRFkjksa esa ls dqy jkf”k 1]19]74]254@& :i;s v{kjs ,d djksM+ mUuhl yk[k pkSgrj gtkj nks lkS pkSou :i;s dk euilUn iRFkj 700 :i;s ,oa VqdM+k 450 :i;s ?kufQV ds fglkc ls ns nsosA

¶39

2- LFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh ds foi{k esa bl vk”k; dh tkjh QjekbZ tkos fd og tc rd bdjkjukek fnuk¡d 17&04&2019 dh ikyuk esa oknh dks mldh lEiw.kZ jkf”k 1]19]74]254@& :i;s v{kjs ,d djksM+ mUuhl yk[k pkSgrj gtkj nks lkS pkSou :i;s ds iRFkj r; Hkko ls u nsos rc rd [kku la[;k 42D ds mrjh fgLls ds ik;s cuki 25 fQV X 200 fQV esa ls fudyus okys iRFkjksa dk lkSnk fdlh vU; ls ugh djs ,oa u gh bl ik;s ls fudyus okys iRFkjksa dks [kku ds iSM+s ls gVk;sA

¶40

3- vU; vuqrks’k ekuuh; U;k;ky; tks oknh ds i{k esa mfpr le>s vrk QjekosA

¶41

4- [kpkZ eqdnek fnyk;k tkosA”

¶42

A bare perusal of the above reliefs makes it crystal clear that the consideration amount has been specified by the plaintiff himself to be Rs.1,19,74,254/-. The prayer which has been made is that the defendant be directed to specifically perform the contract and provide him the stone/raw material to the valuation of the said amount.

¶43

Section 40 of the Act of 1961 provides as under:

¶44

40. Suits for specific performance. - In a suit for specific performance, whether with or without possession, fee shall be payable -

(5 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:1493]

[CR-57/2023]

(a) in the case of a contract of sale, computed on the amount of the consideration:

¶49

(b) in the case of a contract of mortgage, computed on the amount agreed to be secured by the mortgagee:

¶50

(c) in the case of a contract of lease, computed on the aggregate amount of the fine or premium, if any, and of the average of the annual rent agreed to be paid:

¶51

(d) in the case of a contract of exchange, computed on the amount of the consideration, or as the case may be. on the market value of the property sought to be taken i exchange:

¶52

(e) in other cases, where the consideration for the promise sought to be enforced has a market value, computed on such market value or where such consideration has no market value, at the rates specified in section 45.

¶53

A bare reading of the above provision can leave no doubt that the case of the plaintiff cannot fall under Clause (e) of the above provision as the consideration amount is clearly specified in the present matter and hence, the same definitely falls under Clause (a) of Section 40 of the Act of 1961.

¶54

So far as the averment of counsel for the respondent that the said amount was disputed is concerned, the same would be of no consequence, as the court fee ought to have been computed on the relief prayed and when the plaintiff himself came up with the specific amount of valuation/consideration, he is definitely required to pay the court fee in terms of Section 40(a) of the Act of 1961.

¶55

In view of the above provision and the observations as made, the present revision petition is allowed . The finding of the learned trial Court that the valuation/court fee would be determined after the issue being framed and the evidence being led being erroneous, is quashed and set aside.

[2024:RJ-JD:1493]

[CR-57/2023]

(6 of 6)

It is made clear that the plaintiff would be required to pay the court fee in terms of Section 40(a) of the Act of 1961. The learned trial Court is directed to pass appropriate orders to direct the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee and then proceed in accordance with law.

¶60

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶61

However, let the revision be listed on 07.02.2024 with the report as directed above.

¶62

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶63

106-T.Singh/-

Ishwar Chand Jangid v. Manoj Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Chand Jangid v. Manoj Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Safikan Vs Ramchandra

Shri Sen Kul Chorasi Purbiya Payau and Bagechi Sanstha Vs Achlaram

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kumari Shyana @ Shyanika Patidar

Ishwar Lal Vs Naresh Kumar

Municipal Board Mt.Abu and Anr. Vs M/S Hotel Hillock Pvt.Ltd.

Roop Singh Vs Cholla Ms. General Insurance Co. Ltd.