Whether court can direct amendment of plaint when suit is not properly valued

In Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha & anr reported in (1987) 4 
SCC 69, the Supreme Court has held as under: 
“It   is   now   well   settled   by   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in 
Sathappa   Chettiar   v.   Ramanathan   Chettiar 
and 
Meenakshisundaram   Chettiar   v.   Venkatachalam   Chettiar  that 
in   a   suit   for   declaration   with   consequential   relief   falling 
under   Section   7   (iv)   (c)   of   the   Court   Fees   Act,   1870,   the 
plaintiff   is   free   to   make   his   own   estimation   of   the   reliefs 
sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes 
of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It 
is   only   in   cases   where   it   appears   to   the   court   on   a 
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that 
the   valuation   is   arbitrary,   unreasonable   and   the   plaint   has 

been demonstratively undervalued, the court can examine the 
valuation made by the plaintiff by an inquiry and may direct 
proper valuation of the suit for  purposes of jurisdiction of the 
court and payment of court fees. and can revise the  same. 
The plaintiff has valued the leasehold interest on the basis of 
the rent.   Such a valuation, as has been rightly held by the 
courts   below,   is   reasonable   and   the   same   is   not 
demonstratively arbitrary nor there has been any deliberate 
Plaint   in   paragraph   18   reproduced   supra   is   vague   and 
underestimation of the reliefs....” 
omnibus.   Without   observing   anything   on   merit,   therefore,   it   would   be 
expedient to quash and set aside impugned order with direction to the 
petitioner/plaintiff     to   amend   paragraph   18   of   the   plaint   in   order   to 
incorporate detailed pleading for the payment of court fees as to   value 
the suit for purposes of  jurisdiction and court fees.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
Writ Petition No. 804 of 2014

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society
Limited, 
versus
 Municipal Corporation, Amravati, through its
Municipal Commissioner.

Coram :  A. P
.  Bhangale, J
Dated  :  27th June 2014

citation;2014(6) ALLMR 853

1. Rule.  Heard forthwith by consent of parties.
2. Petitioner (original plaintiff) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 155 
of 2011 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati for declaration 
and   permanent   injunction.     Petitioner   prayed   relief   of   declaration   that 

advertisement dated 22.8.2010 published by the Corporation that it has 
taken   over   possession   of   suit   plots   (without   actually   taking   over 
possession) is arbitrary and illegal.  In the alternative, a declaratory relief 
is   sought   that   if   there   is   presumptive   possession   with   respondent 
Corporation, the same may be declared illegal and it be restored to the 
petitioner.     Permanent   injunction   is   sought   restraining   respondent 
(defendant)   Corporation   from   dealing   with   suit   plots   in     colourable 
3.

exercise of power vested in it by law. 
Respondent­Corporation filed application (exhibit 17) under 
Order   7,   rule   11   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   for   direction   to   the 
petitioner   pay   deficit   court   fee   and   in   the   alternative,   for   rejection   of 
plaint.  It was stated in paragraph 2 of the application that as per Section 
6 (iv) (d) of the Bombay Court Fee Act, petitioner is liable to pay 1/4th ad 
valorem   fee   and  that   value   of  suit  plots  is   more  than   Rs. 30   lacs   and 
petitioner   is   liable   to   pay   court   fee   accordingly   in   terms   of   the   above 
provision.     Petitioner   opposed   the   said   application   contending   that 
respondent­Corporation misread the plaint. 
4.
Learned     trial   Judge     partly   allowed   the   application   and 
directed petitioner to  value suit correctly as per Section 6 (iv) (d) of the 
Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and pay requisite court fee within a period 
of one month from the date of order.  This order is under challenge in this 
writ petition. 

5.
Heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   at   length.     Perused 
plaint, application, reply thereto and impugned order passed by the trial 
Court. I have  gone through the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra 
Court Fees Act, Suit Valuation Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. 
6.
Learned   counsel   for   petitioner   has   relied   upon   ruling   in 
Inderlal   Panwarmal   v.  Khialdas   and  ors  reported   in   1969   DGLS  (AHS) 
1017   to   contend   that   it   was   not   open   to   the   trial   Court   to   revise   the 

valuation which the petitioner has put in its plaint and the case clearly 
falls within Section 6 (iv) (j) of the Act.   I have gone through the said 
ruling.  In the case before the Gujarath High Court, it was found that suit 
before it was not in substance a suit to obtain substantive relief capable of 
being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetory loss. 
The agreement which was obtained from plaintiff was out of coercion and 
no consideration had passed from the defendant. 
7.
Relevant paragraph where petitioner/plaintiff has valued the 
suit for jurisdiction of the Court and for payment of court fee, reads as 
under: 
“18.     The   suit   of   the   plaintiff   is   that   for   declaration   and 
injunction.  For the prayer of declaration the suit is valued at 
Rs.   1,000/­   and   for   the   prayer   of   injunction   the   same   is 
valued at Rs. 1,000/­.   The Court fee of Rs. 200/­ is thus 

affixed herewith.”
Computation   of   fees   payable   in   certain   suits   is   provided 
8.
under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Court­Fees Act.  It has been provided 
under Section 6 (ha) of the Act that in suits for declaration that any sale, 
or contract for sale or termination of contract for sale, of any movable or 
immovable   property  is   void  one­half  of  ad  valorem  fee   leviable   on   the 
value of the property is required to be paid.   Under Section 8 of the Suits 

Valuation Act, 1887 it is provided that where in suits other than those 
referred to in   paragraphs (v), (vi) and (x) and clause (d) of paragraph 
(xi)   in   Section   6   of   the   Bombay   Court   Fees   Act,   1959   court­fees   are 
payable  ad valorem under the Bombay Court­fees Act, 1959 the value as 
determinable for the computation of court­fees and the value for purposes 
of jurisdiction shall be the same.  Rule 2 of the Civil Court Manual (Rules 
Made by the High Court under the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869) and 
the Court­Fees Act, 1870 provides as under:
“2.     In   suits   for   the   possession   of   land,   houses,   and 
gardens mentioned in paragraph (v) in Section 6 of the 
Bombay   Court­fees   Act,   1959   (Bom.   XXXVI   of   1959) 
(hereinafter referred to as “the Court­Fees Act”), for the 
purposes of jurisdiction, the value of the property shall be 
determined as follows, namely :
(a)  Where the subject­matter is a house or garden, 

the case may be;
(b)  Where the subject­matter is a house or garden 
according to the market value of the house or garden, as 
according to the market value of the assessment payable 
in respect of the land.”
Article 7 of Schedule I contained in the Maharashtra Court­
Fees Act, provides for ad valorem fee on any other plaint,  application or 

petition (including memorandum of appeal), to obtain substantive relief 
capable   of   being   valued   in   terms   of   monetary   gain   or   prevention   of 
monetary   loss   including   cases   wherein   application   or   petition   is   either 
treated as a plaint or is described as the mode of obtaining the relief as 
aforesaid.
9.
In Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha & anr reported in (1987) 4 
SCC 69, the Supreme Court has held as under: 
“It   is   now   well   settled   by   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in 
Sathappa   Chettiar   v.   Ramanathan   Chettiar 
and 
Meenakshisundaram   Chettiar   v.   Venkatachalam   Chettiar  that 
in   a   suit   for   declaration   with   consequential   relief   falling 
under   Section   7   (iv)   (c)   of   the   Court   Fees   Act,   1870,   the 
plaintiff   is   free   to   make   his   own   estimation   of   the   reliefs 
sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes 
of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted. It 
is   only   in   cases   where   it   appears   to   the   court   on   a 
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that 
the   valuation   is   arbitrary,   unreasonable   and   the   plaint   has 

been demonstratively undervalued, the court can examine the 
valuation made by the plaintiff by an inquiry and may direct 
proper valuation of the suit for  purposes of jurisdiction of the 
court and payment of court fees. and can revise the  same. 
The plaintiff has valued the leasehold interest on the basis of 
the rent.   Such a valuation, as has been rightly held by the 
courts   below,   is   reasonable   and   the   same   is   not 
demonstratively arbitrary nor there has been any deliberate 
Plaint   in   paragraph   18   reproduced   supra   is   vague   and 

10.
underestimation of the reliefs....” 
omnibus.   Without   observing   anything   on   merit,   therefore,   it   would   be 
expedient to quash and set aside impugned order with direction to the 
petitioner/plaintiff     to   amend   paragraph   18   of   the   plaint   in   order   to 
incorporate detailed pleading for the payment of court fees as to   value 
the suit for purposes of  jurisdiction and court fees. In view of the leave so 
granted, petitioner shall carry out amendment within fifteen days from 
the date of receipt of this order.   Trial Court shall then  decide application 
(exhibit   17)   afresh   after   hearing   both   the   sides   bearing   in   mind 
observations made in this order. 
11.
In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of directions in 
paragraph 10 above with no order as to costs.

Print Page