Segregable damages claim must be quantified and properly stamped before trial; partial rejection is permissible for defective relief.

A segregable claim for damages or compensation must be specifically quantified, valued for court fee and jurisdiction, and duly stamped before it can proceed. Under the CPC and the Court Fees Act, such a monetary relief cannot be sent to trial in an unquantified or insufficiently stamped form. The Delhi HC also noted that a plaint may be rejected in part where the defective relief is distinct and severable, and the maintainability of other prayers does not cure that defect. The consequence was that the damages claim could be deleted unless the plaint was amended and the requisite court fee paid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a claim for damages/compensation could be put to trial without quantification of the relief, valuation of the suit for court-fee and jurisdiction, and payment of appropriate court fee; (ii) Whether a plaint could be rejected only in part where the segregable relief of damages/compensation was itself not properly constituted.

Issue (i): Whether a claim for damages/compensation could be put to trial without quantification of the relief, valuation of the suit for court-fee and jurisdiction, and payment of appropriate court fee.

Analysis: A relief for recovery of damages is not an enquiry-based claim that can be deferred to the stage of final adjudication. The plaintiff must quantify the amount claimed and value that relief for court-fee and jurisdiction. Under Order IV Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a plaint is not duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements of Order VI and Order VII, and Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 bars proceeding with a plaint that is insufficiently stamped. The claim for damages/compensation, if pressed, therefore could not be allowed to proceed without proper valuation and payment of court fee.

Conclusion: The claim for damages/compensation could not be tried without proper quantification, valuation and court-fee payment, and the objection was answered in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a plaint could be rejected only in part where the segregable relief of damages/compensation was itself not properly constituted.

Analysis: The prohibition against dissecting a plaint in the abstract does not prevent rejection of a distinct and severable relief that is independently not maintainable. A relief that is undervalued or not properly stamped is liable to be dealt with at the threshold, and the continuance of other maintainable reliefs does not cure the defect in the segregable monetary claim. The court therefore treated the damages/compensation claim as a separate relief that could not be compelled to go to trial merely because other prayers survived.

Conclusion: Partial rejection of the plaint was permissible in respect of the damages/compensation claim, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the question of the damages/compensation claim, with the respondent granted time to amend the plaint and pay the requisite court fee, failing which that relief would stand deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: A segregable relief that is not properly quantified, valued and stamped cannot be compelled to proceed to trial merely because other reliefs in the plaint are maintainable; such a relief may be rejected at the threshold notwithstanding the survival of the remainder of the suit.

---