1 wp9155.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9155 OF 2010 1. M/s Associated Alcohols & Breweries Limited, a registered company, having their office at Khodigram, Barawaha, District. Khargaone, Madhya Pradesh, through their Authorised Director, Mr. Santosh Kedia S/o Chiranji Lalji Kedia, aged : 56 years, Occ: Business, Director of Plaintiff no.1, having his official address at Khodigram Barawaha, District : Khargone, Madhya Pradesh. 2. Central India Molasses Corporation, A Proprietary concern, through Proprietor Mr. Ghulam Dastgeer Dahelavi S/o Ghulam Rabbani Dahelavi, Having their branch office at Flat No. 06, Golden Rock, Plot No. 21/22, Vidya Nagar, Seven Hills, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Shree Rameshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, A Co-operative Society registered under The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, having their office and works At Raosaheb Nagar, Post. Sipora Bazaar, Tahsil Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. ِAnand Chawre, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 3RD MAY, 2011. 2 wp9155.10 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard finally Advocates Mr. Anand Chawre for petitioners-plaintiffs and Mr. Bajaj for respondent-defendant. By impugned order passed on preliminary issue, the trial Court has directed the petitioners-plaintiffs to pay court fee on further amount claimed in the suit i.e. of Rs. 28,73,098/- and to pay court fee on that claim. That direction is questioned before this Court. 2. According to Advocate Mr. Chawre in plaint by way of abundant precaution, damages to the tune of Rs. 45,22,072/- are claimed as grant of relief of specific performance is discretionary. He further contends that because of provisions of Section 20 and 21 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court has power to grant the damages/compensation where it decrees or dismisses the suit for specific performance. The petitioners-plaintiffs being businessmen have as required by law looked into provisions of Section 73 of the Contract Act and computed the damages which worked out to Rs. 45,22,072.00 and hence, the said computation can not be looked into for the purpose of payment of court fee. The relief according to him is secondary to the main relief of specific performance and as the suit for specific performance is correctly valued, the impugned order as passed is unsustainable. He contends that in any case at 3 wp9155.10 the time of final adjudication if it comes to payment of compensation/damages to petitioners, the requisite court fee can always be asked for. 3. According to Advocate Mr. Bajaj, the impugned order does not call for any interference. He states that here damages or compensation has been computed and claimed, trial Court has therefore correctly appreciated the controversy and passed the impugned order. 4. The power of the Court deciding suit for specific performance are well settled. Here, in plaint the present petitioners-plaintiffs have sought a decree for specific performance of contract for delivery of 2748.29 M.T. of Molasses and in addition to it they have also sought compensation in sum of Rs. 45,22,072/-. As per para 24 of the plaint suit is valued at Rs. 16,48,974/- for the purposes of court fees i.e. value of Molasses. 5. The court fees paid are only on Rs. 16,48,974/- and court fee have not been paid on Rs. 45,22,072/- which is claimed in addition to the decree for specific performance. This being the position on record, the arguments about powers of Court deciding suit for specific performance are clearly misconceived in the 4 wp9155.10 present facts. In prayer `A' a decree sought for specific performance while in prayer B-1 which is shown as in alternative, the Court is requested to order defendants to pay the compensation to plaintiff in sum of Rs. 45,22,072.00. In prayer B-2 in addition to decree for specific performance very same amount is again sought for as compensation. This is independent prayer. Attempted reliance on provisions of Specific Relief Act is therefore misconceived. 6. The details of that loss are given in paragraph no.16 and in paragraph no.12 in plaint. It is contended that because of breach of contract committed by defendants, plaintiff no.1 suffered net loss of Rs. 38,23,396/- towards additional costs of goods + Rs. 5,83, 974/- being the consideration paid for short delivery, Rs. 1,14,702/- towards taxes and duties and charges that has to be doubly paid to the Government. This has been clubbed to Rs. 45,22,072/-. Thus in short, these damages are claimed in addition to decree for specific performance. 7. Trial Court has however, deducted the amount of court fee paid on prayer for specific performance while passing the impugned order. Thus, after deducting the valuation of the suit for the purposes of specific performance at Rs. 16,48,974/- from the 5 wp9155.10 above sum, the direction is to pay court fee on balance amount of Rs. 28,73,098/-. Trial Court thus has directed the petitioners- plaintiffs to pay court fee on highest relief or larger relief which they have claimed in the suit. Correctness or otherwise of this exercise has not been assailed before this Court. 8. In so far as present controversy is concerned, I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp9155.10