B.P. Naagar vs Raj Pal Sharma

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020)

B.P. Naagar & Ors. …. Appellant(s) Versus Raj Pal Sharma …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

Leave granted.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the

final order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the High Court of

Delhi, whereby it allowed C.M. (M) No.686 of 2019 and

C.M. (App.) No.20889 of 2019 and set aside the orders

dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019 passed by the Court of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Additional District Judge, II, Central Tis Hazari Courts, Vijay Kumar Date: 2023.07.28 17:52:08 IST Reason:

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 1 of 30

New Delhi. The Defendant Nos. 5 to 9 in the suit are the

appellants herein and the plaintiff therein is the

respondent herein. It is to be noted that Annexure P-14,

Memorandum of Writ Petition, which culminated in the

impugned order, would reveal that it was filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section

115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,

‘CPC’), challenging the orders dated 01.07.2017 and

02.03.2019. Considering the rival contentions, it is only

apposite to refer to the orders dated 01.07.2017 and

02.03.2019 passed by the Trial Court to know their nature

for an appropriate disposal of this appeal.

2. Order dated 01.07.2017 passed by the Trial Court

in CS(OS) No.612960/2016, exhibited as Annexure P-7 in

the captioned appeal, would reveal that it was an order

passed in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11

CPC, moved on behalf of defendant No.5/ the second

appellant in the captioned appeal. In fact, the suit was

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 2 of 30 originally filed by the respondent herein before the High

Court viz., CS(OS) No.809/2011 for declaration and

cancellation of the gift deed dated 27.04.2010 and sale

deed dated 10.01.2011 and also for mandatory injunction

and permanent injunction. Originally prayers (a) to (e)

were sought for in the plaint. However, vide order dated

20.05.2015, the plaintiff/the respondent herein was

permitted by the High Court to abandon prayers (c) and

(d) made in the plaint and thus, the suit was pursued qua

prayers in (a), (b) and (e) only. Later, it was transferred

to the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Central, Tis

Hazari Court, New Delhi pursuant to the enhancement of

the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. In the

context of the contentions and the nature of the order

impugned, it is profitable to refer to prayers (a), (b) and

(e) in the plaint and they read thus:-

“(a) pass a decree of declaration and cancellation thereby declaring and cancelling the gift deed dated

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 3 of 30 27.04.2010 which was registered as document no.

3890, entered in Additional Book No.1, Volume No. 3311 at pages 66 to 73 on 06.05.2010 in the office of Sub-Registrar -I, Delhi executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of the defendants no. 2 to 4 being illegal, void, ineffective/inoperative and of no consequences.

(b) pass a decree of declaration and cancellation thereby declaring and cancelling the sale deed dated 10.01.2011 which was registered as document No. 158 entered in Additional Book No. I, Volume No. 3671 at pages 109 to 121 on 10.01.2011 in the office of Sub-Registrar I, Delhi by the defendant: no. 2 to 4 in favour of the defendants no. 5 to 9 being illegal, void, ineffective/inoperative and of no consequences.

(e) pass a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants jointly and severally including against their heirs, agents, employees assignees, representatives, successors etc. thereby restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiffs from their respective front and rear portions at second & third floors of the property No. E 173, Kamla Nagar, Delhi more particularly shown in red colour in the side plan filed with the plaint.”

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 4 of 30

3. In the application filed under Order VII Rule 11,

CPC, praying for rejection of the plaint before the Trial

Court it was contended by the 5th defendant/the second

appellant herein that the suit was not properly valued for

the purposes of Court fee and proper Court fee was not

paid. It was further contended therein that since the

plaintiff/the respondent herein had valued the suit, as is

evident from the plaint, at Rs.1 Crore he was required to

pay ad valorem Court fee on the said amount.

Obviously, the plaintiff/the respondent herein resisted

the prayer for rejection of the plaint and after a detailed

consideration based on the rival contentions raised, the

Trial Court passed order dated 01.07.2017 as under: -

“11. Since the suit has not been properly valued and proper court fee has not been paid, therefore the plaint deserves to be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

12. Accordingly, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deserves to be allowed. However time is granted to the plaintiff till next date of hearing to

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 5 of 30 properly value the suit and make the payment of deficient court fee.

13. Put up for further proceedings on 13.07.2017.”

4. Thus, obviously, even after holding that the suit

deserves to be rejected, as per the order dated

01.07.2017 the suit was ordered to be put up on

13.07.2017 for further proceedings. In the meanwhile,

the plaintiff/the first respondent herein moved four

applications under Order VI Rule 17, CPC, which are

exhibited in this appeal as Annexures P-8 to P-11, for

amending the plaint. Out of the said four applications,

two were disposed of based on the statement made on

behalf of the plaintiff. Later, applications dated

14.08.2017 and 28.02.2019, exhibited as Annexures P-10

and P-11 in this appeal, were taken up and were rejected

as per order dated 02.03.2019 (Annexure P-13 in this

appeal). After dismissing those applications filed under

Order VI Rule 17, read with Section 151, CPC for

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 6 of 30 amendment of the plaint as per Annexure P-12, a

separate order was passed on 02.03.2019 itself rejecting

the plaint by allowing the application filed by defendant

No.5/the second appellant herein, under Order VII Rule

11, CPC.

5. It is feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned

orders dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019 that the

respondent herein filed C.M. (M) No.686 of 2019 before

the High Court which was disposed of as per the

impugned order dated 02.12.2019. C.M. (App.) No.

20889 of 2019 is an application filed therein seeking

permission to amend the plaint. A bare perusal of the

impugned order would reveal that after taking note of

the fact that the application filed by the petitioner

therein/the respondent herein under Order VI Rule 17,

CPC for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed and

thereafter, the suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11,

CPC. The High Court observed that the main question

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 7 of 30 emanating for consideration in the said petition filed

under Article 227 of the Constitution is whether the suit

was to be valued and requisite Court fee was liable to be

paid or not. The High Court then, went on to observe

thus:- “The question as to whether ad valorem Court fees

required to be paid would be a question which is a mix

question of fact and law, inasmuch as if the plaintiff is a

party to the gift deed and sale deed, then Court fee is liable

to be paid but if the Plaintiff is not a party, no Court fee

would be liable to be paid.” After observing thus, it was

further held:- “Considering that factual evidence would be

required in this matter, it is directed that the Trial Court

shall frame an issue in respect of valuation of the suit,

which shall be adjudicated at the final stage. The

observations in the impugned order are accordingly set

aside. The plaintiff is directed to amend the suit, and the

suit shall proceed further.”

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 8 of 30

6. We have referred to the orders dated 01.07.2017

and 02.03.2019 only to bring to light the nature of the

issues that fell for consideration of the High Court, in

exercise of the power under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India and ultimately culminated in the

order impugned and also the complexity of the legal

conundrum involved in the case. We will consider

appropriately, such issues a little later after referring to

the rival contentions and referring to the relevant

provisions of law.

7. The origin of the subject suit, as narrated by the

appellants, is adverted to hereunder for fitness of things.

The suit property i.e., House No.173, E. Block, Kamla

Nagar, New Delhi (225 Sq. yards) was originally owned

by Shri G.D. Mal and he, vide Will dated 18.06.1971

bequeathed the suit property in favour of his wife Pritam

Devi. After the death of Shri G. D. Mal his wife Smt.

Pritam Devi executed a registered gift deed dated

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 9 of 30 27.04.2010 in favour of her grandsons Shri Balraj Sharma,

Shri Hemant Parashar and Shri Rahul Parashar. Though

they were parties to this proceeding they were

subsequently deleted from the array of parties herein, as

per order dated 03.03.2021. Earlier, they executed sale

deed dated 10.01.2011 in respect of suit property in

favour of the appellants for a sale consideration of Rs.1

Crore. The further case is that respondent herein and

Shri Ram Pal Sharma, who was originally arrayed as the

second respondent and was deleted from the array of

parties as per order dated 03.03.2021, are the sons of late

Shri G.D. Mal and they filed a suit for declaration and

permanent injunction before the Trial Court for

declaring themselves as owners of the first and second

floors of the suit property but the same was subsequently

dismissed as withdrawn. The respondent herein and the

said Ram Pal Sharma then filed the subject suit originally

as C.S. (O.S.) No.809 of 2011, against the appellants

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 10 of 30 herein, seeking relief of permanent injunction/

declaration and cancellation of registered gift deed and

sale deed before the High Court and valued the suit for

the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. The

appellants herein who were the defendants therein then

moved an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC for

rejection of plaint on the ground of non-payment of

deficient Court fee by the plaintiff in terms of the

valuation of the suit made in the plaint, being, a sum of

Rs.1 Crore.

8. The respondent-plaintiff and his co-plaintiff

resisted the application contending that they being not

parties to the sale deed/transaction are not liable to pay

the Court fee for grant of relief of declaration. Later, they

filed an application under Order XIII Rule 10 read with

Section 151, CPC seeking permission to abandon

prayers at clauses “c and d” and the same was allowed

as per order dated 20.05.2015. It is at that stage that the

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 11 of 30 said suit, being C.S. (O.S.) No.809 of 2011 was

transferred from the High Court and was re-numbered,

as mentioned hereinbefore.

9. Now, the core contention raised by the appellants

to assail the order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the High

Court is that it was passed totally ignoring the legal effect

and impact of the order dated 01.07.2017 passed by the

Trial Court on the application of the fifth respondent/the

second appellant for rejection of the plaint under Order

VII Rule 11, CPC. As a matter of fact, it was allowed,

though time was granted to the plaintiff to make

appropriate valuation and to pay the Court fee, it was

further contended. A scanning of the said order dated

01.07.2017 would reveal that after holding that the said

application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, deserves to

be allowed, time was granted to the plaintiffs and it was

posted to 13.07.2017 only for further proceedings.

According to the appellants in the said circumstances, to

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 12 of 30 comply with the said order ad valorem Court fee at the

valuation of the suit shown in the plaint by the plaintiffs

themselves viz., Rs.1 Crore in terms of the provisions

under Rule 7 (4) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 ought to

have been paid instead of filing applications, four in

number, under Order VII Rule 17, CPC. Since two out of

the four applications were disposed of pursuant to the

submission made by the counsel for the plaintiffs and the

other applications were also liable to be disposed

of/dismissed on the same lines and that alone was done

rightly by the Trial Court. Those applications were filed

only to circumvent the order dated 01.07.2017, it was

further contended. Dismissal of the said applications

viz., Annexure P 10 dated 14.08.2017 and Annexure P 11

dated 28.02.2019 are legal and are not available to be

challenged in view of the fact that as per order dated

01.07.2017 the plaint itself was virtually rejected, it was

also contended. Above all, it was contended that

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 13 of 30 separate order dated 02.03.2019 was passed in respect

of the application filed by the fifth defendant viz., the

second appellant for rejection of the plaint, evidently

taking note of the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to

comply with the directions under order dated 01.07.2017

and to pay the balance Court fee. It was submitted that

in terms of Section 2 (2), CPC defining the expression

“decree”, the said definition would take in rejection of

plaint as well and, therefore, a substantive right to file an

appeal against the said order of rejection of plaint is

available under Section 96, CPC and when such a

substantive right to file an appeal is available under

Section 96, CPC, it is impermissible to avail the remedy

of revision under Section 115 of the CPC. For the same

reason, the right to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of

the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is also not available in such cases. It was also the

contention that a careful scanning of Annexure R-14,

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 14 of 30 Memorandum of Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution would reveal that there was no direct

challenge against the separate order dated 02.03.2019

passed rejecting the plaint though the same was

available to be challenged only by preferring a

substantive appeal under Section 96, CPC. It was further

contended that without a successful challenge against

the orders dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019, rejecting

the plaint, the question of consideration of amendment

would not arise in law. In short, the contention is that the

impugned order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the High

Court is unsustainable and liable to be reversed. To

buttress the various contentions to assail the order dated

02.12.2019 of the High Court, learned counsel appearing

for the appellants placed reliance on various decisions.

10. Resisting the contentions raised on behalf of the

appellants, learned counsel for the respondent

contended that the order impugned passed by the High

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 15 of 30 Court is perfectly legal and it calls for no interference in

exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The contention was that as per order dated 02.03.2019,

the Trial Court had first dismissed the applications for

amendment of the plaint and virtually, rejected it for non-

compliance with the directions issued under the earlier

order dated 01.07.2017 by not paying the ad valorem

Court fee. It was contended that a perusal of the order

dated 01.07.2017 would reveal that as per the same, the

Trial Court had inter alia allowed the respondent/plaintiff

to value the suit and to pay the requisite Court fee. It

was further submitted that a scanning of the order dated

01.07.2017 would show that though it was observed that

the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC deserved

to be allowed it was not actually allowed and at the same

time, time was granted to the plaintiff till the next date of

hearing to properly value the suit property and to make

payment of deficient Court fee. It was further submitted

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 16 of 30 by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that

as per the impugned order, the High Court had only

allowed the amendment sought for by the

respondent/plaintiff and directed the Trial Court to

frame an issue in respect of valuation of the suit and to

adjudicate the same at the final stage. It was also the

contention of the respondent that the order dated

01.07.2017, rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11,

CPC is not a decree within the scope of Section 2 (2) of

CPC as the twin ingredients to make the order rejecting

the plaint a decree is absent in the said order in view of

the lack of any conclusive determination of any of the

rights of the parties and more importantly, in view of

absence of order rejecting the plaint. The further

contention of the respondent-plaintiff is that the order

dated 02.03.2019 would reveal that the application for

amendment of the plaint filed under Order VI Rule 17,

CPC was dismissed by the Trial Court and dismissal of

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 17 of 30 application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17,

CPC, would not be a decree and therefore, appealable

under the provisions of Order XLIII, CPC. In such

circumstances, since no other remedy was available to

the respondent, the only remedy open to him was to

approach the High Court by way of the petition under

Article 227 of the Constitution. In short, the respondents

would contend that the impugned order of the High

Court dated 02.12.2019 is legal and, therefore, the

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. A bare perusal of the impugned order of the High

Court would reveal that the sole reason assigned therein

is actually founded on the law regarding the requirement

or otherwise to pay ad valorem Court fee by a non-party

to a sale deed in respect of which a declaration is sought

by him. In fact, there is no conflict in view between the

courts below on that question. As a matter of fact, the

Trial Court took note of the position in regard to the said

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 18 of 30 question settled by this Court in the decision in Suhrid

Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh1 that a plaintiff

seeking a declaration in respect of a sale deed, to which

he is not a party, need not pay ad valorem fee on the

consideration amount mentioned in the deed and he

needs to pay only the fixed Court fee. However, even

after taking into account the said position of law the Trial

Court held the same inapplicable in the case on hand and

applied the law laid down in Gobind Gopal & Ors. v.

Banwari Lal2 and in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. All

India Bharat Sanchar Nigam Executives’ Association

(Regd.) & Ors.3 to hold that as the plaintiff himself

(respondent herein) valued the suit at Rs. 1 Crore under

Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 the case of the

plaintiff would not fall under any of the exceptions

provided under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

1 (2010) 12 SCC 112 2 AIR 1983 Del 323 3 (2006) 130 DLT 195

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 19 of 30 The Trial Court also took note of the fact that the plaintiff

(respondent herein) claimed the reliefs of both

‘declaration’ and ‘cancellation’, as can be seen from

paragraph 7 of the order dated 01.07.2017 of the Trial

Court. After taking such aspects into consideration and

applying the law laid down in Gobind Gopal’s case

(supra) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.’s case (supra)

and virtually, observing that the plaintiff was obliged to

value the suit for the purpose of Court fee and

jurisdiction identically except for Court Fees Act, 1870

the Trial Court held thus:-

“10. I am therefore of the opinion that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit for the purposes of court fees. Either the plaintiff should have valued the suit qua the relief of declaration at Rs. One Crore for the purpose of both court fees and jurisdiction (and paid ad valorem court fees) or he should have valued it at Rs. 200/- (in case he claimed a bare declaration as per the judgment of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh) and filed the suit before the Ld. Civil Judge.

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 20 of 30 11. Since the suit has not been properly valued and proper court fee has not been paid, therefore the plaint deserves to be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

12. Accordingly, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC deserves to be allowed. However time is granted to the plaintiff till next date of hearing to properly value the suit and make the payment of deficient court fee.

13. Put up for further proceedings on 13.07.2017.”

(Underline supplied)

12. We have referred to the order of the Trial Court

impugned before the High Court to point out that various

aspects of the matter arising from the application for

amendment of the plaint in view of the order dated

01.07.2017 were considered in detail by the Trial Court

and at the same time, without going into the sustainability

or otherwise such conclusions and findings, the High

Court as per the impugned order set them aside and

permitted the respondent to amend the plaint and

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 21 of 30 directed the Trial Court to frame an issue in respect of

valuation of the suit and to adjudicate it at the final stage.

13. In the wake of factual situation obtained as above it

is apposite to refer to certain relevant aspects. At the

outset, it is to be noted that what exactly was the

amendment sought for and permitted by the High Court

is not discernible from the impugned order. The petition

filed by the respondent herein/the plaintiff under Article

227 of the Constitution of India is available on record as

Annexure P14 and it would reveal the main prayer

(prayer ‘a’) made by the respondent-plaintiff as under:

“a) call for the records of the above-mentioned CS No. 12960/2016 titled as Sh. Raj Pal Sharma & Anr. Vs. Smt. Pritam Devi & Ors. which was pending in the Ld. Court of Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, ADJ-11, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and examine the impugned orders dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019 and accept the present petition, and restore the suit of plaintiff/ petitioner by allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of para 33 of plaint

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 22 of 30 qua court fee & jurisdiction and for deleting the words ‘cancellation’ & ‘cancelling’ from prayer ‘A’ & ‘B’. Accordingly the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the respondent No. 5, be dismissed;”

14. Thus, obviously, the respondent herein, as

petitioner, prayed before the High Court to allow the

application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section

151, CPC for amendment of para 33 of plaint qua Court

fee and jurisdiction and for deleting the words

‘cancellation’ and ‘cancelling’ from prayer paras ‘A’ and

‘B’ and accordingly, to dismiss the application filed by

the 5th respondent the 2nd appellant herein under Order

VII Rule 11, CPC. The application dated 14.08.2017 filed

by the respondent herein/the plaintiff, produced as

Annexure P10, under Order VI Rule 17, CPC would

reveal the amendment sought for in paragraph 33 of the

plaint, as hereunder:

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 23 of 30 “33. That the value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction for the relief of declaration Rs. 200/- and for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction is Rs. 200/- and accordingly requisite court fee is paid thereupon.”

15. Evidently, in the order of the Trial Court dated

01.07.2017 and in the subsequent order dated 02.03.2019

the decisions of the High Court of Delhi in Gobind

Gopal’s case (supra) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.’s

case (supra) were relied on /referred to and going by

those decisions a plaintiff is obliged to value the suit for

the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction identically

except for the exceptions provided under Section 7 of

the Court Fees Act, 1870. Contextually, it is profitable to

refer to the decision of this Court in S. RM. AR. S. SP.

Sathappa Chettiar v. S. RM. AR. RM Ramanathan

Chettiar4 whereunder this Court held that the question

4 AIR 1958 SC 245

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 24 of 30 what could be the value for the purpose of jurisdiction of

a suit of this nature had to be decided by reading Section

7(iv) of the Court Fees Act along with Section 8 of the

Suits Valuation Act. Paragraph 15 therein reads thus:-

“What would be the value for the purpose of jurisdiction in such suits is another question which often arises for decision. This question has to be decided by reading Section 7 (iv) of the Act along with Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. This latter section provides that, where in any suits other than those referred to in Court Fees Act Section 7, paras 5, 6 and 9 and para 10 clause (d), court fees are payable ad valorem under the Act, the value determinable for the computation of court fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. In other words, so far as suits falling under Section 7, sub-section

(iv) of the Act are concerned, Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act provides that the value as determinable for the computation of court fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. There can be little doubt that the effect of the provisions of Section 8 is to make the value for the purpose of jurisdiction dependent

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 25 of 30 upon the value as determinable for computation of court fees and that is natural enough. The computation of court fees in suits falling under Section 7 (iv) of the Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. The result is that it is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of court fees that determines the value for jurisdiction in the suit and not vice versa.

Incidentally we may point out that according to the appellant it was really not necessary in the present case to mention Rs. 15,00,000 as the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction since on plaints filed on the Original Side of the Madras High Court prior to 1953 there was no need to make any jurisdictional valuation.”

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 26 of 30

16. But then in the petition filed before the High Court

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (Annexure

P14) the respondent herein, who was the petitioner

therein relied on the decision of the High Court of Punjab

& Haryana in Bawa Bir Singh v. Ali Niwan Khan5 to

canvass the position that in a suit falling under Section

7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act one value is given for the

purpose of Court fee and another different value for the

purpose of jurisdiction, then it is the value for purpose of

Court fee which has to be taken for purpose of

jurisdiction and different value mentioned for purpose of

jurisdiction has to be ignored.

17. As noted earlier, Annexure P10 would reveal that

the amendment sought for and going by the same, the

values for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction are

the same. It is relevant to note that as per order dated

01.07.2017, the Trial Court held that the case of the

5 AIR 1964 Punjab 381

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 27 of 30 plaintiff/the respondent herein did not fall in any of the

carved out exceptions in Section 7 of the Court Fees Act,

and furthermore, it would reveal that the very contention

of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the suit was

valued in terms of Section 7 (vi) (d) read with entry 17(vi)

of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act as applicable to Delhi

and this contention was repelled.

18. It is to be noted that despite all the aforesaid

circumstances and involvement of many questions of

relevance and importance, without even referring to the

amendment sought before the High Court, it only held

that the petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint. If

what was actually prayed by this plaintiff/respondent

before the Trial Court by way of amendment was the one

(referred to hereinbefore) which stands granted as per

the impugned order of the High Court, then a question

may crop up whether the question of ad valorem Court

fee would survive for consideration thereafter. Needless

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 28 of 30 to say, another question may also crop up for

consideration whether the Court of Additional District

Judge-II, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi could proceed

with the suit further when once the amendment is

allowed as above and whether, the suit, thereafter, be

presented before the lowest court having the

jurisdiction. In other words, whether the court of

Additional District Judge-II, Central, Tis Hazari Courts,

Delhi could proceed to frame the issues and adjudicate

them, thereafter.

19. A perusal of impugned order of the High Court

would reveal that none of the above and other allied

questions were considered by the High Court though

such aspects were gone into by the Trial Court.

20. In the circumstances, we do not think it proper to

consider all the said questions in this appeal and we

think that it is an eminently fit case where we should

remand the matter for fresh consideration by the High

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 29 of 30 Court. Ordered accordingly. To enable the High Court

to do so, the impugned order is set aside and we leave

liberty to both sides to take all legally available

contentions before the High Court, for a proper decision

in the matter.

21. Taking into account the fact that the suit is

originally of the year 2011 we request the High Court to

dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably, within a

period of six months. We make it clear that we have not

made may observation on merits.

22. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There is no

order as to costs.

……………………, J.

(C.T. Ravikumar)

……………………, J.

(Sudhanshu Dhulia) New Delhi;

July 28, 2023

SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 30 of 30