Published on: 29 January, 2024 at 13:14 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh V. Paras Nath Singh (2002)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that if the Civil Suit has not sought an essential relief which he ought to have prayed for, and without which the relief sought for in the plaint as framed and filed cannot be allowed to him. It is held that Civil Suit shall have to suffer the dismissal of the suit. It is held that written statement is not relevant for the purpose of determination of the valuation and payment of court fee by the plaintiff.
8. It is well settled that the court fee has to be paid on the plaint as framed and not on the plaint as it ought to have been framed unless by astuteness employed in drafting the plaint the plaintiff has attempted at evading payment of court fee or unless there be a provision of law requiring the plaintiff to value the suit and pay the court fee in a manner other than the one adopted by the plaintiff.
The court shall begin with an assumption, for the purpose of determining the court fees payable on plaint, that the averments made therein by the plaintiff are correct. Yet, an arbitrary valuation of the suit property having no basis at all for such valuation and made so as to evade payment of court fees and fixed for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on some court which it does not have, or depriving the court of jurisdiction which it would otherwise have, can also be interfered with by the court. It is the substance of the relief sought for and not the form which will be determinative of the valuation and payment of court fee.
The defence taken in the written statement may not be relevant for the purpose of deciding the payment of court fee by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is ultimately found to have omitted to seek an essential relief which he ought to have prayed for, and without which the relief sought for in the plaint as framed and filed cannot be allowed to him, the plaintiff shall have to suffer the dismissal of the suit. These principles of law were overlooked by the trial court in passing the impugned order which was put in issue before the High Court. We are further of the opinion that though the revision preferred by the plaintiff was directed against the order dated 1-3-1997, the real question arising before the High Court was to find out whether the suit was properly valued and proper court fee was paid thereon in accordance with law. ……………
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra