| CITATION | SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | July 28, 2023 |
| COURT | The Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | B.P. Naagar & Ors. |
| RESPONDENT | Raj Pal Sharma |
| BENCH | Hon’ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia |
STATUTES REFERRED
“Article 227 of the Indian constitution – deals with the Union and State governments’ taxing authorities.”
“Section 7 of Court Fee Act – Market Value Determination”
INTRODUCTION
The case is “B.P. Naagar & Ors. vs. Raj Pal Sharma,” and it involves legal concerns concerning the value of an action for court expenses and jurisdiction. A sequence of court orders and appeals are involved in the case. The appellants were the defendants in the complaint, which was originally filed before the High Court by the respondent for declaration and cancellation of the gift and sale deeds, as well as for obligatory and permanent injunctions. This appeal by special leave is directed against the final order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi and vacate the orders of the Central Tis Hazari Courts’ Additional District Judge-II (ADJ-II).
FACTS OF THE CASE
- This special leave appeal is aimed against the High Court of Delhi’s final ruling dated 02.12.2019. The High Court granted the plaintiff’s petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and set aside the orders of the Court of Additional District Judge, II, Central Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019. Defendants 5 through 9 are the appellants in this case, while the respondent is the plaintiff.
- The case arose from a High Court petition brought by the respondent seeking declaration and cancellation of a gift and sale deed, as well as a permanent and obligatory injunction. The complaint was filed at the High Court, but it was later moved to the Court of Additional District Judge, II, Central, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi.
- The defendant, namely the fifth defendant (second appellant), filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking that the plaintiff’s claim be rejected because it was not correctly valued for court expenses and the necessary court fee was not paid.
- The plaintiff initially sought various reliefs in the claim, but the High Court eventually permitted them to withdraw several prayers, leaving just requests (a), (b), and (e) in the plaint. These prayers were for the declaration and annulment of a gift and sale deed, as well as for a permanent and obligatory injunction.
- The Trial Court’s judgment dated 01.07.2017 decided that the complaint should be dismissed because the court fees were not correctly assessed, and ordered the plaintiff to correct the valuation and pay the shortfall court fee by the next hearing. A later ruling dated 02.03.2019 denied the application to alter the plaint once more.
- The plaintiff subsequently filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, contesting the suit’s rejection and, in particular, the court’s decision on the correct calculation of court expenses.
- The High Court overturned the Trial Court’s rulings, ruling that whether an ad valorem court fee is necessary is determined by whether the plaintiff was a party to the gift and sale deeds. The High Court asked the Trial Court to define an issue regarding the value of the claim for court expenses at a later stage.
ISSUE RAISED
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court for further consideration, examining if the Additional District Judge-II, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi could proceed with the suit and present it before the Supreme Court.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT
Advocate Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal appeared on behalf of the appellants and contended that the High Court’s ruling was incorrect and that the claim should have been dismissed since the required court costs were not paid as instructed by the Trial Court.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
Advocate Sudhir Kumar Gupta appeared on behalf of the respondent and contended that the High Court’s ruling was proper and that the question of court expenses should be decided once the plaint was amended.
RATIO DECIDENDI
In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court’s order did not adequately address the case’s multiple legal difficulties. It was recognized that the High Court’s permissible alteration was not properly described, and crucial problems about court costs, jurisdiction, and the Trial Court’s acts were not appropriately reviewed.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and returned the case to the High Court for further review. It ordered both parties to provide all legally available arguments, and it requested the High Court to accelerate the proceedings, ideally within six months.
The Supreme Court made no rulings on the merits of the case but emphasized the importance of thoroughly investigating the legal problems presented.
The case analysis summarises the case’s background, legal concerns, judicial processes, and judgments delivered by the Trial judicial, High Court, and Supreme Court. It emphasizes the case’s intricacies, particularly the value of the claim for court expenses and jurisdiction, as well as the parties’ later changes and appeals.
OBITER DICTA
“The two-judge Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed, “In the circumstances, we do not think it proper to consider all the said questions in this appeal and we think that it is an eminently fit case where we should remand the matter for fresh consideration by the High Court. Ordered accordingly. To enable the High Court to do so, the impugned order is set aside and we leave liberty to both sides to take all legally available contentions before the High Court, for a proper decision in the matter.”
I am therefore of the opinion that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit for the purposes of court fees. Either the plaintiff should have valued the suit qua the relief of declaration at Rs. One Crore for the purpose of both court fees and jurisdiction (and paid ad valorem court fees) or he should have valued it at Rs. 200/- (in case he claimed a bare declaration as per the judgment of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh) and filed the suit before the Ld. Civil Judge.
CONCLUSION
The case analysis summarises the case’s background, legal concerns, judicial processes, and judgments delivered by the Trial judicial, High Court, and Supreme Court. It emphasizes the case’s intricacies, particularly the value of the claim for court expenses and jurisdiction, as well as the parties’ later changes and appeals.
REFERENCE
Written by Bhoomi sharma an intern under legal vidhiya.
