Case: STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. DEV BRAT SHARMA

the case of M/s. Commercial Aviation (supra) and Chettiar (supra), several orders were passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which have been relied upon in the impugned judgment. What is important to note here is that this case related to the valuation for the purposes of relief sought. 28. In the present case, the respondent has not given a separate valuation for relief sought and rightly so, as it had no liberty and right to give different valuation than what was being actually claimed. As a matter of fact, in para 11 of the plaint it is clearly stated that the valuation is the same for Court-fees and jurisdiction. 29. The valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and relief has to be the same in the money suits falling under category 7(i). It was only in category of suits covered by Clause (iv) of Section 7 that there could be two different valuations for the purposes of jurisdiction and for relief sought. 30. Ms Babbar referred to two judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of her submissions, namely, Ranjit Kaur (supra) (2006) and Manjeet Singh (supra) (2012). Manjeet Singh (supra) had relied upon Ranjit Kaur (supra) which had clearly held that in a suit for damages, ad valorem Court-fees would be payable on the amount of the damages claimed. 31. Ms. Babbar also pointed out that the judgment in the case of Ranjit Kaur (supra) dealt with the case laws on the point not only of this Court but also of different High Courts. It specifically noted that the judgments in the case of Subhash Chander Goel (supra), Jagdip Singh Chowhan (supra) and Hemraj (supra) did not notice the statutory provisions and other binding precedents. 32. The High Court in the impugned judgment had also placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Jagdip Singh Chowhan (supra) which again was a case for damages. This was carried to this Court by the State. The said judgment has since been set aside by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.3987 of 2006, State of Punjab vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan. A copy of the said order has been provided by Ms.Babbar, learned counsel for the appellants. This Court observed that there can be no dispute that in a suit for malicious prosecution, ad valorem Court-fees is payable. The Court proceeded to grant liberty to the counsel for the plaintiff- respondent to take appropriate steps for amendment of the plaint or to make good the Court-fees. The said order is reproduced hereunder: The present appeal is directed against the order dated 14.10.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.R.No.2933/2004 whereby the High Court has permitted the plaintiffs- (respondent herein) to pay the court fee on the tentative valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees. It is worth noting, for the said purpose the suit was valued at Rs.1,43,000/- though a decree was sought for Rs.two crores approximately. There can be no dispute that in a suit for malicious prosecution, ad valorem court fee is payable. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 could only state that he will file an application for amendment before the trial Court either restricting his claim to the amount on which the court fee has been paid or may enhance the claim beyond the said amount and will pay the ad valorem court fee on the same. Recording such statement of respondent No.1, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and grant him liberty to file the requisite amendment to bring the plaint in order. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. 33. On behalf of the respondent, a submission was raised relating to the final determination of issue No.3 by the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2020 where the Trial Court decided the issue against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. 34. The said submission has no legs to stand for two reasons: firstly, the said judgment had come subsequent to the filing of the present appeal @ Special Leave Petition as the judgment of the High Court is dated 11.08.2017 and secondly, the Trial Court had dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 28.02.2020 as such the State was not required to challenge the finding on issue No.3. At the time when Trial Court took the suit for final determination, the subject-matter of issue No.3 was covered by the impugned order of the High Court. As such, no other decision could have been taken by the Trial Court. Moreover, for the reason that the issue was already pending before this Court since 2018, much before the dismissal of the suit as such it was not necessary for the State to challenge the said finding. Any decision taken by the Trial Court would always remain subject to final outcome of the appeal@ Special Leave Petition which was pending since prior in point of time. To say that the decision of present appeal would be purely academic is therefore not acceptable. As such we find no applicability of the two judgments in the case of M.P. Shreevastava (supra) and Shanbhagakannu Bhattar (supra) relied upon by the respondent. Apart from the above, the finding on issue No.3 could also be questioned by the State in its capacity as respondent during the hearing of the appeal. 35. We are not going into the other questions raised by Ms. Babbar regarding the institution of suit being abuse of the process of law and we leave it open for the Appellate Court to decide the said issue, if raised by the State. 36. The High Court, therefore, fell in error in setting aside the order passed by Trial Court whereby it had granted time to the plaintiff-respondent to make good the Court-fees within a particular period failing which the plaint would stand rejected.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]A reading of the relief clause would make it abundantly clear that this was a money suit for compensation/damages and not falling under any of the categories mentioned in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, there would be no question at all for the applicability of Section 7(iv) of the Act. It would be a simple case of applicability of Section 7(i) of the Act and ad valorem Court-fees would have to be paid as per Schedule 1 entry 1.21. It is only with respect to the category of suits specified in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act that the plaintiff has the liberty of stating in the plaint the amount at which relief is valued and Court-fees would be payable on the said amount. Liberty given under clause (iv) to the specific suits of six categories is not available to the suits falling under any other clause, be it (i), (ii), (iii) etc. Once the suit in question was a money suit for compensation and damages falling under clause (i) of Section 7 of the Act, ad valorem Court-fees would be payable on the amount claimed.23. The judgment in the case of Ms. Commercial Aviation and Travel Company (supra) is of this Court and rest of the judgments are of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The judgment in the case of M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Company (supra) has been relied upon by the High Court in the case of Hemraj (supra) which in turn has been followed in other cases. In the case of Commercial Aviation and Travel Company (supra), the suit was filed for relief of dissolution of partnership and for accounts. For the purposes of jurisdiction, it was valued at Rs. 25 lacs whereas for the purposes of court fees the relief was valued at Rs. 500/-. In those circumstances, an application was moved by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit has been grossly undervalued.24. This Court considered the provisions under Section 7(iv) of the Act and was of the view that suits covered by Section 7(iv) were of such nature that it is difficult to lay down any standard of valuation and it was, therefore, that liberty was given to the plaintiff to give a separate valuation of the relief sought for the purposes of payment of court fees. This Court also observed that in a suit for accounts, it is almost impossible for the plaintiff to value the relief correctly. As such the judgement in the case of M/s Commercial Aviation (supra) has no application. The suit for accounts and dissolution of partnership would fall in one of the six categories as specified in Section 7(iv) of the Act.25. This Court further relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of S.RM.AR.RM. Ramanathan Chettiar (supra)reported in AIR 1958 SC 245  equivalent of 1958 SCR 1024   and quoted a paragraph from the said judgment which explains why the legislature left it open for the plaintiff to value his claim for the six categories of the suit falling under Section 7(iv) of the Act. The basic reason was that as it was almost difficult to value the claim for any of the suits covered under Section 7(iv), therefore, for the purposes of payment of court fees, a different valuation for the relief sought could be given. All such suits were thus placed in Clause (iv) giving liberty to the plaintiff to give a separate valuation for relief sought. However, ultimately it would be the actual relief granted which would determine the court fees to be paid and the same may be made good by the plaintiff in case lesser court fees was paid.26. In the case of Chettiar (supra), the relief claimed was for partition of the joint family properties and also for accounts in respect of the joint family assets managed by the respondent. The plaintiff further valued the claim for accounts at Rs. 1,000/- and paid a court fees of Rs. 100/- on the said amount. However, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the appellant gave a valuation of Rs. 15 lacs as the value of his share. The registry took objection with regard to the payment of the court fees and valuation, and therefore, the matter was referred to various authorities, officers and Court under the provisions of the Act. Ultimately after a series of innings, the matter was settled by the aforesaid judgment and while dealing with the said issue regarding different valuations and payment of court fees at the time of institution of the suit, this Court discussed the scheme of Section 7 and in that context, explained it as follows:If the scheme laid down for the computation of fees payable in suits covered by the several sub- sections of s. 7 is considered, it would be clear that, in respect of suits falling under sub-s. (iv), a departure has been made and liberty has been given to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purposes of court fees. The theoretical basis of this provision appears to be that in cases in which the plaintiff is given the option to value his claim, it is really difficult to value the claim with any precision or definiteness. Take for instance the claim for partition where the plaintiff seeks to enforce his right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property. The basis of the claim is that the property in respect of which a share is claimed is joint family property. In other words, it is property in which the plaintiff has an undivided share. What the plaintiff purports to do by making a claim for partition is to ask the court to give him certain specified properties separately and absolutely on his own account for his share in lieu of his undivided share in the whole property. Now it would be clear that the conversion of the plaintiffs alleged undivided share in the joint family property into his separate share cannot be easily valued in terms of rupees with any precision or definiteness. That is why legislature has left it to the option of the plaintiff to value his claim for the payment of court fees. It really means that in suits falling under s. 7 (iv)(b) the amount stated by the plaintiff as the value of his claim for partition has ordinarily to be accepted by the court in computing the court fees payable in respect of the said relief. In the circumstances of this case it is unnecessary to consider whether, under the provisions of this section, the plaintiff has been given an absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on his relief.27. In the case of Hem Raj (supra) and all other judgments referred to in the impugned judgment, reliance is placed upon the observations from the judgments of Commercial Aviation(supra) and Chettiar (supra) explaining the departure of difference carved out for the categories and suits covered by Section 7(iv) of the Act. They have erroneously proceeded to apply the same to the category of money suits mentioned in Section 7(i) of the Act. Neither in the case of M/s Commercial Aviation (supra) nor in the case of Chettiar (supra), this Court ever laid down that for the purposes of suits covered by clauses other than Section 7(iv), there could be separate valuation for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. On a completely erroneous approach, an erroneous interpretation of the judgments in the case of M/s. Commercial Aviation (supra) and Chettiar (supra), several orders were passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which have been relied upon in the impugned judgment. What is important to note here is that this case related to the valuation for the purposes of relief sought.28. In the present case, the respondent has not given a separate valuation for relief sought and rightly so, as it had no liberty and right to give different valuation than what was being actually claimed. As a matter of fact, in para 11 of the plaint it is clearly stated that the valuation is the same for Court-fees and jurisdiction.29. The valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and relief has to be the same in the money suits falling under category 7(i). It was only in category of suits covered by Clause (iv) of Section 7 that there could be two different valuations for the purposes of jurisdiction and for relief sought.32. The High Court in the impugned judgment had also placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Jagdip Singh Chowhan (supra) which again was a case for damages. This was carried to this Court by the State. The said judgment has since been set aside by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.3987 of 2006, State of Punjab vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan. A copy of the said order has been provided by Ms.Babbar, learned counsel for the appellants. This Court observed that there can be no dispute that in a suit for malicious prosecution, ad valorem Court-fees is payable. The Court proceeded to grant liberty to the counsel for the plaintiff- respondent to take appropriate steps for amendment of the plaint or to make good the Court-fees. The said order is reproduced hereunder:The present appeal is directed against the order dated 14.10.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.R.No.2933/2004 whereby the High Court has permitted the plaintiffs- (respondent herein) to pay the court fee on the tentative valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees.It is worth noting, for the said purpose the suit was valued at Rs.1,43,000/- though a decree was sought for Rs.two crores approximately. There can be no dispute that in a suit for malicious prosecution, ad valorem court fee is payable. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 could only state that he will file an application for amendment before the trial Court either restricting his claim to the amount on which the court fee has been paid or may enhance the claim beyond the said amount and will pay the ad valorem court fee on the same. Recording such statement of respondent No.1, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and grant him liberty to file the requisite amendment to bring the plaint in order.The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.34. The said submission has no legs to stand for two reasons: firstly, the said judgment had come subsequent to the filing of the present appeal @ Special Leave Petition as the judgment of the High Court is dated 11.08.2017 and secondly, the Trial Court had dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 28.02.2020 as such the State was not required to challenge the finding on issue No.3. At the time when Trial Court took the suit for final determination, the subject-matter of issue No.3 was covered by the impugned order of the High Court. As such, no other decision could have been taken by the Trial Court. Moreover, for the reason that the issue was already pending before this Court since 2018, much before the dismissal of the suit as such it was not necessary for the State to challenge the said finding. Any decision taken by the Trial Court would always remain subject to final outcome of the appeal@ Special Leave Petition which was pending since prior in point of time. To say that the decision of present appeal would be purely academic is therefore not acceptable. As such we find no applicability of the two judgments in the case of M.P. Shreevastava (supra) and Shanbhagakannu Bhattar (supra) relied upon by the respondent. Apart from the above, the finding on issue No.3 could also be questioned by the State in its capacity as respondent during the hearing of the appeal.35. We are not going into the other questions raised by Ms. Babbar regarding the institution of suit being abuse of the process of law and we leave it open for the Appellate Court to decide the said issue, if raised by the State.36. The High Court, therefore, fell in error in setting aside the order passed by Trial Court whereby it had granted time to the plaintiff-respondent to make good the Court-fees within a particular period failing which the plaint would stand rejected.