Maharaji Educational Trust And ... vs Punjab And Sind Bank And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 367 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated January 12, 2006 directing them to amend their suit within two weeks from the date of the order and in the event of failure to amend the suit, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

2. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order and other related material on record carefully.

3. The brief facts of the case that led to the filing of this appeal are that the appellants had filed a suit for declaration seeking a declaration to the effect, that the communication dated 22.8.2005 sent by respondent No.1 repudiating the settlement dated 23.7.2005 which took place between the parties in bank recovery matter, is illegal, void and is vitiated by fraud. The settlement is purported to had been arrived at between the parties on 23.7.2005 whereby the parties allegedly agreed to settle the account of the appellants with the respondent No.1 for Rs. 24 Crores and towards that settlement, the appellants sent a token amount of Rs. 1 Crore to respondent No.1 which the respondent No.1 vide its communication dated 22.8.2005 ordered to keep it under 'no lien account with the bank'. It is this communication by which the appellants are agitated and they thus filed the suit for getting the aforesaid communication declared as null and void on grounds mentioned in the suit. The appellants, Along with the suit, had also filed an application Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for an ad-interim injunction order restraining the respondents from giving effect to their communication dated 22.8.2005 till the disposal of this suit. This application for interim relief is listed for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 8.3.2006.

4. The appellants had paid fixed Court fee of Rs.20/- on their suit for declaration, although the suit was valued for Rs.24 Crores for the purpose of jurisdiction under the Suits Valuation Act.

5. While the suit was in its initial stage, the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the suit was liable to be dismissed Under Order 7 Rules 10 & 11 CPC as according to the respondents the relief of declaration prayed by the appellants without claiming any consequential relief is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. It was further argued that the suit was otherwise not maintainable as the appellants have failed to pay ad valorem Court fee as per the provisions of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870.

6. While adjudicating upon the above preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents, the learned Single Judge took a view that the appellants could not have claimed only the relief of declaration simplicitor and they were obliged to seek consequential relief as well. It shall be significant to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

The relief simplicitor of declaration in relation to the letter dated 22nd August, 2005 is hardly a composite or complete relief. The plaintiffs have to claim a further relief of injunction restraining the defendants from making any other recoveries except as prayed, its settlement on a specific relief in regard to enforcement of the agreement dated 23rd July, 2005. The animus of the plaintiff is primarily to prevent recovery, which otherwise is in furtherance to the orders of the DRT. The other relief could be with regard to enforcement of the agreement dated 23rd July, 2005 wherein the claim is sought to be settled for a sum of Rs.24 crores. In either of the situations, the plaintiffs have failed to ask for a further and necessary relief which he ought to ask in order to complete his remedy in the suit and for proper adjudication of the matters in issue.

7. Consequently the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to amend the plaint of their suit and include the consequential relief also in the prayer clause. It was further directed that in case the appellants would fail to amend their plaint within time granted in the order, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

8. On a perusal of the prayer contained in the plaint, it may be immediately noticed that the only relief claimed by the appellants is a declaration from the Court to the effect that the communication dated 22.8.2005 sent by the respondents to them repudiating the settlement that took place between the parties vide letter dated 23.7.2005 is illegal and void and of no consequence. It is the first principle of law that the Court is to pronounce its verdict on the prayer made by a party to the case and by no stretch of imagination, the Court can compel any party to include relief which he is not interested for. In our view the plaintiff is dominus-litus and is free to choose his remedy he wants in the suit. It is not open to the Court to import into the plaint or to read into it any relief which has not been asked for by the plaintiff only in order to levy higher Court fee. We derive support for our said view from a Full Bench judgment of Punjab High Court in Jai Krishna Das and Ors. v. Babu Ram and Ors. . Learned counsel for the respondents could not show any contrary judgment to us.

9. Having regard to the settled position of law on the above aspect, we have no hesitation in holding that there is an inherent fallacy in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to amend their plaint cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny.

10. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. We make it clear that the learned Single Judge shall decide the application under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC uninfluenced by any observation contained in this order. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.