B.P. Naagar Vs. Raj Pal Sharma 2023 SCC online SC 886

INTRODUCTION

This is the case that came to the Supreme Court of India as a special leave petition directed against the final order of the High Court of Delhi and order assed by the Court of ADJ, II ,Central Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. This case mainly related to the question of Ad Valorem Court Fees

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. HouseNo. 173,E. Block, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi( 225Sq. yards) was property question in the suit firstly  possessed by ShriG.D. Mal and he, vide Will dated 18.06.1971  willed the suit property in favour of his  woman Pritam Devi. After the death of ShriG.D. Mal his  wife executed a listed gift deed dated 27.04.2010 in favour of her grandsons Shri Balraj Sharma, Shri Hemant Parashar and Shri Rahul Parashar. Though they were parties to this proceeding they were  later deleted from the array of parties herein, as per order dated 03.03.2021.  
2.  Before, they executed a sale deed dated 10.01.2011 in respect of suit property in favour of the petitioners for a sale consideration of Rs. 1 Crore. The  further case is that respondent herein and Shri Ram Pal Sharma, who was firstly  disposed as the alternate replier and was deleted from the array of parties as per order dated 03.03.2021, are the sons of late Shri G.D. Mal and they filed a suit for  protestation and  endless  instruction before the Trial Court for declaring themselves as  possessors of the first and alternate  bottoms of the suit property but the same was  later dismissed as withdrawn.
3. The replier herein and the said Ram Pal Sharma  also filed the subject suit firstly as C.S.(O.S.)No. 809 of 2011, against the petitioners herein, seeking relief of  endless  instruction/  protestation and cancellation of registered gift deed and  trade deed before the High Court and valued the suit for the purposes of Court  figure and  governance.
4. The petitioners herein who were the defendants therein  also moved an  operation under Order VII Rule 11, CPC for rejection of complaint on the ground of remitment of deficient Court  figure by the complainant in terms of the valuation of the suit made in the plaint, being, a sum ofRs. 1 Crore.
5. Order dated 01.07.2017 passed by the Trial Court in CS( OS)No. 612960/ 2016, displayed as Annexure P- 7 reveal that it was an order passed in an  operation filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, moved on behalf of defendant No. 5/ the alternate complainant in the identified appeal.
6. The suit was primarily filed by the replier herein before the High Court for  protestation and cancellation of the gift deed dated 27.04.2010 and  trade deed dated 10.01.2011 and also for  obligatory  instruction and  endless  instruction over them.
7. Primarily prayers( a) to( e) were sought for in the complaint. Still, the complainant the replier herein was permitted by the High Court to abandon prayers( c) and( d) made in the complaint and  therefore, the suit was pursued qua prayers in( a),( b) and( e) only. Latterly, it was transferred to the Court of fresh District Judge- II, Central, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi in proportion to the  improvement of the  financial  governance of the Civil Courts. In the  environment of the contentions and the nature of the order impugned, it’s profitable to  relate to prayers( a),( b) and( e).
8.  The specific prayers( a),( b), and( e) as mentioned in the complaint were as follows( a) To pass a decree of  protestation and cancellation of the  trade deed dated 27^th April 2010 executed by defendantNo. 1 in favor of defendantsNo. 2 to 4 as illegal, void, ineffective, and of no consequence.( b) To pass a decree of  protestation and cancellation of the  trade deed the  trade deed dated 10^th January 2011 executed by defendantsNo. 2 to 4 in favor of defendantsNo. 5 to 9 as illegal, void, ineffective, and of no consequence.( e) To grant a  endless and  obligatory  instruction restraining the defendants, including their heirs at law, agents,  workers,  procurators, representatives, successors,etc., from  expropriating the complainants from their  separate front and  hinder portions at the alternate and third  bottoms of the property No. E 173, Kamla Nagar, Delhi.
9. In the  operation filled before Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code( CPC), the 5^th defendant( the alternate complainant in this case) argued for the rejection of the complainant’s claim. With contention that suit wasn’t  duly valued for the purposes of Court  figure and proper Court  figure wasn’t paid. It was further contended therein that since the complainant the replier herein had valued the suit, as is apparent from the plaint, atRs. 1 Crore he was  needed to pay  announcement valorem Court  figure on the said  quantum.
10. The complainant the replier herein  defied the prayer for rejection of the complaint and after a detailed consideration. The Trial Court on passed order dated 01.07.2017 as under
11. As the suit has not been  meetly valued and the correct court  figure has not been paid, it’s  justified fit for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Thus, the  operation under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is  supposed to be allowed. Still, the complainant is granted time until the coming date of  hail to  rightly value the suit and make the necessary payment for the deficient court  figure.
12. It’s feeling  displeased by the  forenamed orders dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019 that the replier herein filedC.M.( M)No. 686 of 2019 before the High Court which was disposed of as per the impugned order dated 02.12.2019.C.M.( App.)No. 20889 of 2019 is an  operation filed therein seeking  authorization to amend the plaint.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether ad valorem Court costs are needed to be paid would be a question which is a blend question of fact and law, inasmuch as if the complainant is a party to the gift deed and sale deed.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

1. According to Section 2( 2) of the Civil Procedure Code( CPC), the description of” decree” includes the rejection of a complaint.
2. That upon examining Annexure R- 14, the Memorandum of Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, it becomes apparent that there was no direct challenge against the separate order dated 02.03.2019, which rejected the complaint The option to challenge that order was available only by filing a substantial appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.
3. That without successfully challenging the orders dated 01.07.2017 and02.03.2019, which rejected the plaint, the question of considering any amendments to the plaint doesn’t arise in agreement with the law.
4. That the impugned order dated02.12.2019 passed by the High Court is unsustainable and should be reversed. To buttress the colorful contentions to assail the order dated02.12.2019 of the High Court, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on various decision.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. The replier- complainant and their co-plaintiff opposed the operation, arguing that since they weren’t parties to the sale deed or sale, they weren’t obliged to pay the court fee for seeking a protestation. 
2. Latterly, they filed another operation under Order XIII Rule 10, along with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking authorization to abandon prayers at clauses” c and d” in the suit. This request was granted according to the order dated20.05.2015. 
3. It was at this stage that the suit, preliminarily known asC.S.(O.S.)No. 809 of 2011, was transferred out of the High Court andre-numbered, as preliminarily mentioned.

JUDGEMENT

1. As a result, the questions concerning ad valorem court fees and the  authority of the court where the suit should be  progressed further weren’t addressed by the High Court, unlike the Trial Court, which had gone into these aspect. 
2. Due to the below circumstances, the court decided not to consider all the questions in this appeal and decided to remand the matter for fresh consideration by the High Court. The impugned order was set away, allowing both sides to present all  fairly available contentions before the High Court for a proper decision. 
3. The High Court was requested to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the matter within six months. The court made it clear that they hadn’t made any  compliances on the  graces of the case. The appeal was consequently disposed of, with no order as to costs.

CONCLUSION

1. The High Court stated that the question of whether ad valorem court  freights are  needed depends on a  blend of fact and law.However, court fees are applicable;  else, no court fees are necessary, If the complainant is a party to the gift deed and sale deed.
2. Due to the need for factual  substantiation in this matter, the Trial Court is directed to frame an issue regarding the suit’s valuation, to be  arbitrated at the final stage. The High Court capsized the  former order’s  compliances and instructed the complainant to amend the suit consequently, allowing the proceedings to continue

REFERENCE

1. https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/deciding-on-ad-valorem-court-fees-discrepancies-by-delhi-trial-court-and-further-by-high-court–6856.asp 
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63090709/ 

This Article is Author by ROHIT ATTRI PUPIL OF KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA; Legal Research Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin