2005 (10) TMI 607 - HC - Indian Laws

Court partially allows defendants' applications, directs plaintiffs to pay court fee for mesne profits. Amendment granted, objections rejected.

Surinder Kaur and Ors. Versus S. Rajdev Singh and Ors.

The court partially allowed the defendants' applications, directing the plaintiffs to make up the deficiency in payment of court fee for mesne profits ... - Issues Involved:1. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Valuation of the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.3. Amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.4. Compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of the Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The defendants sought rejection of the plaint on the grounds that it was not properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction, and that the plaintiffs failed to claim ad valorem court fee as required by Section 7 of the Court Fee Act. They also argued that the plaintiffs did not make an averment of readiness and willingness to perform their obligations under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The court noted that the plaintiffs had valued the suit at Rs. 54 crores and Rs. 50 lakhs respectively, which was based on definite data calculation. The court held that the plaintiffs are obliged to value the suit similarly for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. Failure to do so would result in the plaint being liable for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11.2. Valuation of the Suit for Purposes of Court Fee and Jurisdiction:The defendants contended that the plaintiffs valued the suit for mesne profits at Rs. 50 lakhs per month but only paid a court fee of Rs. 20. They argued that the plaintiffs should have paid ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed for mesne profits prior to the institution of the suit. The court agreed, stating that the plaintiffs could not take the benefit of paying a fixed court fee for the amount claimed prior to the institution of the suit. The court directed the plaintiffs to make up the deficiency in payment of court fee within one week, failing which the plaint would be liable for rejection.3. Amendment of the Plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint to specifically state their readiness and willingness to perform their obligations and to correct the number of years for which the business had been carried on. The court allowed the amendment, noting that it would not alter the cause of action or the basic case of the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that the amendment was necessary to avoid technical objections and to clarify the plaintiffs' claims. The application for amendment was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 as costs.4. Compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:The defendants argued that the plaint should be rejected as the plaintiffs failed to make an averment of readiness and willingness to perform their obligations under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The court noted that the plaintiffs had made specific averments in the plaint regarding their request for renewal of the lease. The court held that the absence of a specific averment in the plaint was cured by the amendment allowed under Order 6 Rule 17. The court concluded that the objection regarding non-compliance with Section 16(c) was without merit and rejected it.Conclusion:The court partially allowed the defendants' applications, directing the plaintiffs to make up the deficiency in payment of court fee for mesne profits within one week. The application for amendment of the plaint was allowed, while other objections raised by the defendants were rejected. The applications were disposed of with the parties bearing their own costs.