RAJ KAUR Vs. KINETIC GALLERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's revision. It is filed against the order dated 4th of April, 1998, passed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 27-A/96. The trial Court required the applicant to pay the deficit of court-fee on Rs. three lakhs within one month of the date of the order in exercise of its powers under Order 7, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) IN order to understand the nature of controversy, regarding the payment of Court-fee, between the parties to this revision, it is imperative to consider the allegations in the plaint for determining the nature of reliefs claimed by the applicant. The question of pecuniary jurisdiction and in given cases the question of payment of Court-fee are intimately and inextricably connected with allegations in the plaint. It is often found that the real reliefs claimed as per body of the plaint are not reflected in the prayer clause. Therefore, the Courts, as a rule, determine the question of pecuniary jurisdiction and the payment of Court-fee by reading the plaint as a whole instead of confining themselves to the prayer clauses. These principles are so well established that it is not necessary to cite any authority on the point. It would, however, proper to point out that in the case of S. Rm. Ar. S.Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245, the proposition aforesaid was concerned so far as the Court fee is concerned. The suit in that case was governed by the provisions of Section 7(iv) of Court Fees Act. In view of section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 7(iv) of Court Fees Act. However, no departure can be made from the principle aforesaid of reading the plaint as a whole even in those cases where the plaintiff seeks a relief requiring payment of fixed Court fee but puts his own value on the relief involved for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant argued that the relief of declaration was independent of the relief of injunction. The applicant was entitled to pay fixed fee of Rs. 30 under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. For the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the applicant has given Rs. three lacs as the value because it was the cost of the show- room. The relief of declaration was unrelated to the relief of permanent injunction, as it arose subsequent to the relief of declaration. The cause of action for relief of declaration arose in June 1996 and for permanent injunction arose in September 1996. Both the causes of action were unrelated and independent. The relief for permanent injunction should be treated as an independent relief. The value of that relief was only worth Rs. 300/- to the applicant and accordingly, under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, Rs. 30/- were paid. The Court below erred in holding that the relief of permanent injunction was relief consequential to relief of declaration. Therefore, the impugned order demanding Court fees on Rs. three lacs be set aside.