WPC/2571/2016 of Smt Sumitra Sinha Vs Arjun Singh And Ors on 23 December 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

W.P.(C) No. 2571 of 2016

….....

Smt. Sumita Sinha..... Petitioner

Versus

Arjun Singh & Others

…...... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

….........

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Shrey Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate Mr. Shrey Mishra, Advocate Mr. Mungalal Kr. Chitra, Advocate.........

13/23.12.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan assistedby learned counsel, Mr. Shrey Mishra has submitted that petitioner beingthe defendant in the court below has preferred this writ petition underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated19.03.2016 passed in Title Suit No.32/2011 passed by learned Civil Judge,Jr. Division (Munsif), Hazaribagh, whereby the stand taken by the plaintiffthat valuation of suit of Rs.60,000/- has been challenged to be Rs.6 lacs.The court below has rejected the objection filed by the defendant on theground that issue with regard to valuation of suit as well as pecuniaryjurisdiction of the court with other issues framed in the case shall bedecided on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon thejudgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sujir Keshav Nayak Vs.Sujir Ganesh Nayak reported in (1992) 1 SCC 731 paras-3 & 4, of whichmay profitably be quoted hereunder:- “3. The question however is if the disclosure of valuation is inabsolute discretion or option of the plaintiff or it can beobjected to by the defendants and adjudicated upon by theCourt, and if so in what cases. It was left open in Chettiar's case(supra). Provisions of Central and State Act have already beenextracted earlier. Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of Kerala Actamply safeguards the interest of revenue. Similar provisionsexist in Central Act. But under Civil Procedure Code plaint isliable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if it is under-valued.How to reconcile the two provisions, the one leaving it toabsolute discretion of plaintiff to value the suit as he considers

proper and the other to reject a plaint if it is under-valued. Forthis it is necessary to examine the scheme disclosed in the CivilProcedure Code relating to filing of suit. Section 15 of the CivilProcedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.'). providesthat any suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest gradecompetent to try it. What is a court of lowest grade and for whatnature of suit has been determined and regulated by Stateenactments. Competency refers to jurisdiction territorial orpecuniary, of limited or unlimited limits. In courts of limitedpecuniary jurisdiction valuation assumes great importance. Aplaintiff may over or under-value the suit for purposes ofavoiding a court of a particular grade. In the former the plaintmay be returned under 0.7 Rule 10 for presentation in propercourt but in latter it is liable to be rejected. Since under-valuation goes to the root of maintainability of the suit adefendant is entitled to raise the objection irrespective of thenature of the suit. That is why this Court in Abdul HamidShamsi v. Abdul Majid And Ors. while upholding the right of theplaintiff to value the suit for accounting according to his ownestimate held that he "has not been given the absolute right oroption to place any valuation whatever in such relief." But thatwas a case of limited pecuniary jurisdiction in which thedefendant could object as arbitrary under-valuation could resultin rejection of the plaint. Such right should be denied in suits ofunlimited jurisdiction for more than one reason. A defendant, asobserved by the Privy Council in R.S.Jadhav Desai v.S.V.Jadhav Desai, 1918 PC 188, is not entitled to use it as aweapon to non suit the plaintiff. Then, by very nature of the suita defendant is, normally, interested in delaying its adjudicationwhich at times may frustrate the very purpose of the suit.Further, the provisions in Central Act and State enactmentsensure that interest of State may not suffer by providing that nodecree shall be passed or executed unless the court fee is paidon difference between the valuation disclosed and amount forwhich the suit is decreed. In Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v.Venkatachalam Chettiar it was observed that even though in suitfor accounting the loss of revenue is ensured by statutoryprovision yet a plaintiff has a duty to give a fair estimate of theamount for which he sues. Reason for it obviously wasinsistence on being honest and just when approaching a court of

law. The observation was made because of the duty cast oncourt by 0.7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. But there is no indication if thesuit was filed in a court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction. It canthus be resolved that in suits for accounting or for dissolution ofpartnership and accounting filed in courts of limited pecuniaryjurisdiction the plaintiff must take every care to disclosevaluation which is not arbitrary as the plaint is liable to berejected on objection of the defendant. But in suits of suchnature filed before courts of unlimited jurisdiction the valuationdisclosed by the plaintiff may be accepted as correct. This,however, does not mean that the courts power to examine thecorrectness of valuation is taken away. If on perusal of plaintthe court is prima facie satisfied that the plaintiff has not beenfair and valued the suit or relief arbitrarily it is not precludedfrom directing the plaintiff to value it properly and pay court feeon it. In Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj thisCourt observed, "It is now well settled by the decisions of this Court in SathappaChettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar and MeenakshisundaramChettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar that in a suit for declarationwith consequential relief falling under Section 7(iv)(c) of theCourt Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his ownestimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuationboth for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to beordinarily accepted. It is only in cases where it appears to thecourt on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of thecase that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plainthas been demonstratively undervalued, the court can examinethe valuation and can revise the same.”

" But the defendant has no right to raise such objection nor thecourt should dwelve into the matter after filing of writtenstatement on evidence. The law on this aspect, thus, should betaken to be as under:

(1) Where the question of court fee is linked withjurisdiction a defendant has a right to raise objection and thecourt should decide it as a preliminary issue.

(2) But in those cases where the suit is filed in court ofunlimited jurisdiction the valuation disclosed by the plaintiff orpayment of amount of court fee on relief claimed in plaint ormemorandum of appeal should be taken as correct.

(3) This does not preclude the court even in suits filed incourts of unlimited jurisdiction from examining if the valuation,on averments in plaint, is arbitrary.

4. Coming to the facts the dispute arose between plaintiff anddefendant who are real brothers who had been carrying onbusiness in partnership since 1953. The share of plaintiff was

7/16 whereas that of the defendant was 9/16. In consequence ofdifferences that arose the plaintiff-appellant filed suit forpermanent injunction in which the defence taken was that thepartnership had come to an end in March 1981. Therefore, theplaintiff filed the present suit for declaration that thepartnership stood dissolved and the defendant was liable forrendition of account. The suit for purposes of court fee andjurisdiction was valued at Rs. 10,050. It was also mentionedthat in case the amount found due in favour of plaintiff is morehe shall pay the court fee on that. In written statement thedefendant claimed that the plaintiff had withdrawn hugeamounts from the account of firm at Bombay which the plaintiffwas primarily looking after and, therefore, in fact it was thedefendant who was entitled on accounting to huge amount fromplaintiff. In reply to it the plaintiff in replication claimed thatfrom the date of dissolution, i.e., from March 1981, a sum ofRupees Twenty Eight lakhs was due to the plaintiff. In view ofthe plea raised in replication and on objection raised bydefendant additional issue was framed about valuation of thesuit. The issue was decided as a preliminary issue. The trialcourt held that the plaint was silent as to which of the relief wasvalued under Section 36 of the Act. The court, however, heldthat from the plaint it was clear that the declaratory relief andthe relief for rendition of account were valued under Section36 of the Act. The trial court found that in view of thereplication filed by the plaintiff that a sum of Rupees TwentyEight lakhs was due to him on dissolution of partnership it wasobvious that the suit was undervalued. Consequently it directedthe plaintiff to correct the valuation within one week and pay thedeficient court fee. In revision the High Court held that eventhough the Court is not ordinarily entitled to examine thecorrectness of the valuation shown by the plaintiff it has a dutyto see whether the valuation so disclosed by the plaintiff wasliable to be rejected as arbitrary and he could be compelled to give proper valuation and pay the court fee accordingly. It heldthat since from the claim made in the replication it was clearthat the plaintiff had under-valued the suit by giving anarbitrary valuation the order passed by the trial court wascorrect and the suit could be entertained only after the plaintiffcorrected the valuation and paid the deficient court fee.Relevant allegation in replication in this regard is extractedbelow:

The plaintiff is entitled to realise from the defendant anamount of Rs. 28,00,000 at the time of settlement of accountstowards the loss and damages sustained by the plaintiff from 14-3-1981 which date can be taken as the date of dissolution of thefirm as detailed below....

This was as counter blast to the claim made by thedefendant. Whether this claim was correct could be decided onlyafter evidence was led. In our opinion, the High Court in a suitfiled in a court of unlimited jurisdiction was not entitled todirect the plaintiff to revalue the suit and pay court fee on it.”

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted thatimpugned order may be set aside.

Arguments

Learned counsel, Mr. Rahul Gupta assisted by learned counsel forthe respondent No.1, Mr. Mungalal Kr. Chitra has opposed the prayer andhas submitted that plaintiff is free to assess the value of the suit, he hassubmitted that plaint has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writpetition and from perusal of page no.25 of the writ petition, it appears thatplaintiff has assessed the value of the suit to be Rs.60,000/- and Rs.1,000/-for adveloram court fee for injunction as the plaintiff has prayed forfollowing reliefs:

A. That Title of the plaintiff upon schedule B property of theplaint be declared and possession be confirmed.

B. That if the plaintiff is in any may dispossessed khaspossession may also be delivered to him by evicting the defendant andby removing all structure.

C. That by issue of Permanent and perpetual Injunction thedefendant be restrained from causing obstruction in the peacefulpossession of the plaintiff.

D. That Cost of the suit be also awarded.

E. That any other relief just and equitable plaintiff foundequitable to be also awarded.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has thus referred Section 7of the Court Fees Act, 1870 i.e. Computation of fees payable in certainsuits- and referred Section 7 (iv) of the said act i.e. In Suits - for adeclaratory decree and consequential relief:- (c) to obtain a declaratorydecree or order, where consequential relief is prayed and has referred In allsuch suits, the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the reliefsought, as such, it is the prerogative of the plaintiff to declare the valuationof the suit and pay the court fee. If finding of the trial court is against theplaintiff, the plaintiff is ready to face the consequence as the court deemsfit and proper.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has further submitted thatthe judgment, which has been relied by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is not in contravention to the impugned order, as the trial courthas categorically mentioned in the impugned order that he will decide allissues including the issue with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction afterrecording the evidence and all issues shall be decided by the learned Trialcourt on the basis of the evidence, as such, impugned order may not beinterfered and the objection raised by the defendant / petitioner before thisCourt may be negated.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into thefacts and circumstances of the case, it appears to the Court that learnedTrial Court has taken a right way of minimizing the litigation by framingall contentious issues between the parties including the issues thepecuniary jurisdiction. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence andprove their case on the basis of their materials. But for this, a suit can besegregated in two steps first the question of pecuniary jurisdiction shall bedecided as that can be assailed up to the Apex Court, consuming so manyyears and thereafter, the main suit be proceeded, as the Courts are floodedwith the cases, it would be proper for the Trial Court to frame allcontentious issues and decide after taking evidence.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.

The interim order granted earlier is vacated.

Conclusion

The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and decideall issues including the pecuniary jurisdiction in accordance with law.

However, the parties are at liberty to file their proposed issue beforethe learned Trial Court within a period of one month from today. Thelearned Trial Court shall consider the same and incorporate the same inaccordance with law and parties are free to adduce their evidence.

Since the learned Trial Court has already framed issue with regardto the pecuniary jurisdiction, which touches the maintainability of theapplication. The learned Trial Court is expected to decide the first issuewith regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, which relates to the maintainabilitywhile adjudicating the other issues.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)