Delhi High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs Sh. Lekh Raj on 18 March, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserved: 17.02.2021
Date of Decision: 18.03.2021
+ CM(M) 106/2021 & CM No.4573/2021
SHIV KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Abhimanyu Singla, Adv.
versus
POOJA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Nemo
+ CM(M) 127/2021 & CM No.5389/2021
DINESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Nikhil Malhotra, Adv.
versus
LEKH RAJ & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioner(s) challenging
the order(s) passed by the learned Trial Court(s) in their respective
Suits calling upon the petitioner(s) herein, who are the plaintiffs in the
Suit(s), to deposit the deficit court fee. The Suits filed by the
petitioner(s) are claiming damages qua their alleged defamation.
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 1
2. The question that arises for consideration in the present
petitions is as to whether the court fee payable on such Suits claiming
damages for defamation is ad valorem according to the amount
claimed or whether the petitioners, as plaintiffs, can value the Suit for
purposes of court fee at a value different from the amount claimed in
the Suit and pay the court fee according to the said amount, with an
undertaking to pay the court fee upon the amount which is finally
determined by the learned Trial Court(s) in the Suits as damages
payable to the petitioners.
3. The learned Trial Court has held that the petitioners are to pay
the court fee on the amount claimed in the Suit.
4. In support of their submission that the petitioners are entitled to
put their own valuation to the relief of damages and pay court-fee at
such value, with an undertaking to deposit more court fee when the
actual damages are awarded by the court, the learned counsels for the
petitioners have placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme
Court as well as of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as mentioned
herein-under:
Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, (2007) 8 SCC 600;
Amandeep Sidhu v. M/s Ultratech Cement Limited & Ors.,
2016 SCC OnLine P&H 15769;
Maha Singh v. Mukesh & Anr., [Judgment dated 01.04.2019 in
Civil Revision No. 5478 of 2019 (O&M)];
Mange Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors., [Judgment dated
25.11.2019 in Civil Revision No.10281 of 2018 (O&M)];
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 2
Dev Brat Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors., (Judgment dated
11.08.2017 in Civil Revision No. 291 of 2017);
M/S Commercial Aviation & Travel Company and Ors. v.
Vimla Pannalal, (1998) 3 SCC 423;
Bharpoor Singh & Anr v. Lachhman Singh, [Judgment dated
17.01.2017 in Civil Revision No. 226 of 2017 (O&M)];
Subhash Chander Goel v. Harvind Sagar, AIR 2003 P&H
248;
State of Punjab and Ors v. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, 2004 SCC
OnLine P&H 1022;
S. Ajit Singh Kohar v. Shashi Kant, (Judgment dated
25.08.2014 in Civil Revision No. 5638 of 2014);
Kashmir Singh v. Mandeep Kaur & Ors., (Judgment dated
05.10.2018 in Civil Revision No. 6759 of 2018);
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
for the petitioners, however, find no merit in the same.
6. Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to
as „the Act‟) requires the plaintiff to pay the court fee in a Suit, inter
alia claiming damages, ad valorem according to the amount claimed.
Section 7(iv)(f) of the Act, on the other-hand, requires the plaintiff,
where the Suit is inter alia for accounts, to put a valuation on the relief
sought and to pay the court fee on such relief.
7. In CM(M) 106/2021 titled as Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Pooja &
Anr., the petitioner has filed the Suit for seeking Permanent Injunction
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 3
and claimed compensation for slander against the respondents. The
following prayer is made by the petitioner in the Suit:
"2. Decree for payment of Rs.1.25 Crore as
Compensation for the Slander, Damages and
Compensation for the mental harassment caused by the
defendants, against the defendants and in favour of the
plaintiff."
8. As far as valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and
court fee, paragraph 31 of the Suit reads as under:
"31. That the valuation of the suit for the purpose
of court fee and jurisdiction qua prayer no.1 is fixed at
Rs.130/- (for the purposes of Injunction), upon which a
Court fee of Rs.13/- has been affixed. Qua prayer no.2
the subject matter of the suit is valued at Rs.1.25/-
Crore; being compensation for Slander/Recovery of the
Damages. Hence this Hon'ble Court has pecuniary
jurisdiction to try and dispose of the present suit.
However the quantum of compensation/damages is yet
to be determined by the Court. In view of the settled
law, the plaintiff is not required to pay ad-voleram
Court fee on the amount of sought for compensation.
Hence the plaintiff is affixing a Court fee of Rs.50/- on
the plaint qua prayer no.2; being tentative. However
the plaintiff undertakes to pay the Court fee on the
awarded amount at the time of passing the final
judgment and decree. Hence this Hon'ble Court has
jurisdiction to try and dispose off the suit."
9. A reading of the above paragraph would show that while a
specific amount of Rs.1.25 Crores is claimed as
damages/compensation from the respondents and the petitioner has
valued the Suit for the purposes of jurisdiction also at that value, for
the purposes of court fee, the petitioner has affixed a fixed court fee of
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 4
Rs.50/-, claiming that he is not required to pay ad valorem court fee
and undertakes to pay the deficit court fee on the awarded amount at
the time of passing of the final judgment and decree.
10. In CM(M) 127/2021 titled as Dinesh Kumar v. Lekh Raj &
Ors., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.01.2021 passed
by the learned Trial Court dismissing the application of the petitioner
seeking amendment of the plaint and calling upon the petitioner to pay
the deficit court fee. The Suit in question is one filed for claiming
damages on account of defamation. It makes inter alia the following
prayer:
"i. Recovery of an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- or
of such amount (over and above an amount of Rs.10
lakh) as may be quantified/adjudicated by this Hon'ble
Court on account of damages, may please be passed in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants,
directing the defendants to pay the same, jointly and
severely, alongwith pendentelite and future interest @
12% p.a. till the realisation of the decreetal amount in
the interest of justice and fair play."
11. Paragraph 40 of the plaint gives the valuation of the Suit for the
purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and reads as under:
"40. That value of the suit for the purpose of
jurisdiction is Rs.1,00,00,000/- and value of the suit for
the purpose of court fee is Rs. 10,00,000/- and an
appropriate court fees of Rs. 12,110/- has been affixed
herewith. The plaintiff undertakes to affix the deficit
court fee at the time of final decree of the suit."
12. The petitioner thereafter filed an application whereby he sought
an amendment in paragraph 40 of the plaint to be read as under:
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 5
"40. That value of the suit for the purpose of court
fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,00,00,000/-. However,
since the plaintiff has tentatively assessed the damages
to be Rs.1 Crore, and finally assessed/quantified
minimum damages as Rs.10 lakh, so an amount of
Rs.12,110/- has been affixed as court fee on Rs.10 lakh.
The plaintiff undertakes to pay deficit court fee on the
final assessment/adjudication/quantification of
damages (over and above Rs.10 lakhs) by this Hon'ble
Court at the time when the damages are so quantified."
13. The plaintiff also sought to amend the prayer clause in the plaint
to read as under:
"i. Recovery of an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- or
of such amount (over and above an amount of Rs.10
lakh) as may be quantified/adjudicated by this Hon'ble
Court on account of damages, may please be passed in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants,
directing the defendants to pay the same, jointly and
severely, alongwith pendentelite and future interest @
12% p.a. till the realization of the decreetal amount in
the interest of justice and fair play."
14. A reading of the above plaints in both the Suits would show that
the petitioners have prayed for a specific amount as damages. Section
7(i) of the Act clearly provides that in a Suit for money, including Suit
for damages, the court fee shall be payable according to the amount
claimed in the Suit. Section 7(iv)(f) of the Act, which is for suit for
accounts, can have no application to such a Suit. There are no
accounts to be taken in the Suit.
15. In K.C. Sakaria v. Govt. Of State of Kerala & Anr., (2006) 2
SCC 285, the Supreme Court, in relation to a Suit filed by a contractor
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 6
seeking recovery of money for the work done and contending it to be a
Suit for accounts, held as under:
"15. It is now well settled that the right to claim rendition
of accounts is an unusual form of relief granted only in
certain specific cases and to be claimed when the
relationship between the parties is such that the rendition
of accounts is the only relief which will enable the plaintiff
to satisfactorily assert his legal right (vide Jowahar
Singh v. Haria Mal [(1899) 60 PR 1899: 6 Punj LR 1900],
followed in Gulam Qutab-ud-din Khan v. Mian Faiz
Bakhsh [AIR 1925 Lah 100], State of J&K v. L. Tota
Ram [AIR 1971 J&K 71], Triloki Nath Dhar v. Dharmarth
Counsel [AIR 1975 J&K 76]). The right to seek rendition
of accounts is recognised in law in administration suits for
accounts of any property and for its administration, suits
by a partner of a firm for dissolution of the partnership
firm and accounts, suits by beneficiary against trustee(s),
suits by a member of a joint family against the karta for
partition and accounts, suits by a co-sharer against other
co-sharer(s) who has/have received the profits of a
common property, suits by principal against an agent, and
suits by a minor against a person who has received the
funds of the minor.
16. Even where there is no specific provision for rendition
of accounts, courts have recognised an equitable right to
claim rendition of accounts. In Narandas Morardas
Gaziwala v. S.P. Am. Papammal [1966 Supp SCR 38: AIR
1967 SC 333] this Court considered the maintainability of
a suit by an agent against the principal for accounts.
Negativing the contention that only a principal can sue the
agent for rendering proper accounts and not vice versa (as
Section 213 of the Contract Act provided that an agent is
bound to render proper accounts to his principal on
demand without a corresponding provision in the Contract
Act enabling the agent to sue the principal for accounts),
this Court held: (SCR pp. 40 F and 42 D-E)
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 7
"In our opinion, the statute is not exhaustive and the
right of the agent to sue the principal for accounts is
an equitable right arising under special
circumstances and is not a statutory right.
***
Though an agent has no statutory right for an
account from his principal, nevertheless there may
be special circumstances rendering it equitable that
the principal should account to the agent. Such a
case may arise where all the accounts are in the
possession of the principal and the agent does not
possess accounts to enable him to determine his
claim for commission against his principal. The
right of the agent may also arise in an exceptional
case where his remuneration depends on the extent
of dealings which are not known to him or where he
cannot be aware of the extent of the amount due to
him unless the accounts of his principal are gone
into."
17. To summarise, a suit for rendition of accounts can be
maintained only if a person suing has a right to receive an
account from the defendant. Such a right can either be (a)
created or recognised under a statute; or (b) based on the
fiduciary relationship between the parties as in the case of
a beneficiary and a trustee; or (c) claimed in equity when
the relationship is such that rendition of accounts is the
only relief which will enable the person seeking account to
satisfactorily assert his legal right. Such a right to seek
accounts cannot be claimed as a matter of convenience or
on the ground of hardship or on the ground that the person
suing did not know the exact amount due to him, as that
will open the floodgates for converting several types of
money claims into suits for accounts, to avoid payment of
court fee at the time of institution."
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 8
16. Following the above judgment, this Court, in Hari Gokal
Jewellers v. Satish Kapur, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 482, has held as
under:
"11. In view of these facts as stated in the plaint and the
documents filed by the plaintiff, there can hardly be any
doubt that suit for rendition of accounts would not be
maintainable. Furthermore, in the plaint there is no
reference to any fiduciary or other relationship like master
or servant, employee and contractor, regular mutuality of
accounts maintained in the normal course of business
where a party holds the goods in trust or otherwise and
members of the trust. The vague averments made in the
plaint do not give rise to any definite cause of action,
which could form basis for institution of suit for rendition
of accounts. Another facet of the present case is that the
plaintiff had himself given a notice for recovery of a
definte amount and so as he maintained in the plaint by
paying the 12% interest to the said amount and valuing the
suit at a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs. The plaintiff is certainly
master of the suit as a discretion to value the suit for
purposes of court fee and jurisdiction but this discretion of
the plaintiff has to be regulated by the well settled cannons
of law. Where the plaintiff in his notice and even then in
the plaint claims a definite sum, which in the notice dated
7th October, 2004 was claimed beyond any shadow of
doubt, the suit for rendition of accounts could not be
instituted by the said plaintiff."
17. The petitioners having claimed specific amount as damages,
therefore, were liable to pay court fee on such amount. They cannot
arbitrarily value the reliefs claimed so as to avoid their liability of
paying the court fee alongwith the plaint.
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 9
18. In M/s Commercial Aviation Travel (supra), the Supreme Court
was considering a Suit which prayed inter alia for dissolution of the
partnership and for accounts. While upholding the dismissal of an
application filed by the defendant therein under Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „the
Code‟), the Supreme Court held that in a Suit for accounts it is
difficult for the Court as well to come to a finding even as to the
approximate correct valuation of the relief; the Court therefore, has no
other alternative than to accept the plaintiff‟s valuation tentatively. If
the Court is itself unable to say what the correct valuation of the relief
is, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation that has been
made by him. It was, however, further held that where certain positive
objective standards are available for the purpose of determination of
the valuation of the relief and yet the plaintiff ignores the same and
puts an arbitrary valuation, the Court would be entitled to interfere
under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code, for in such cases the Court
will be in the position to determine the correct valuation with
reference to the objective standards or materials available to it. In such
cases, the plaintiff will not be permitted to put an arbitrary valuation
dehors such objective standards or material.
19. In the present case, the objective and positive material for the
correct valuation of the relief claimed was available in the relief itself.
The petitioners have claimed a specific amount in their respective
Suit. They cannot therefore, arbitrarily value the Suit for the purposes
of court fee and pay a lesser amount as court fee.
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 10
20. This Court in M/s. R & D Enterprises (Export) & Anr. v. Air
France & Anr., ILR (1998) I Delhi 528, in a claim made under the
Carriage by Air Act, 1972, held that it is the duty of the Court, in
which the Suit is instituted, to ensure, at the time of institution of the
Suit, that proper court fee has been paid according to the Act. The
Court therein held that for simple Suits for money, there is no
provision or warrant to fix a tentative value of the court fee in the
plaint. Rejecting the plea of the plaintiff therein that the claim, though
of money, is tentative in nature and is yet to be determined by the
Court and that the plaintiff shall pay the court fee once the same is
determined by the Court, this Court held as under:
"10. In the instant case the amount claimed in
plaint para 23, as noticed above, being Rs.5,00,002/-,
court fees is payable on this amount. The amount of
compensation payable has to be decided by the court
on the merits of the case. It may be found to be more or
less than the amount claimed in the suit or it may be
that it is held to be not payable. Can the plaintiff for
this uncertainty be allowed to pay court fees on some
tentative value, arbitrarily fixed, instead of the amount
claimed by him in the suit, even though with an
averment to make up the deficiency, if any, at a later
stage? Obviously not, for otherwise this would
tantamount to undue and unfair advantage and indeed
an abuse of the process of the court by enabling a
plaintiff to make a highly exaggerated claim at an
astronomical figure and having trial process for
adjudication of issues raised without payment of
proper court fee on the claim so laid.
11. Besides, this being a money suit and the court
fees payable being ad-valorem, the plaintiff having
affixed the jurisdictional value of the suit at
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 11
Rs.5,00,002 cannot, in view of section 8 of the Suits
Valuation Act, 1887 be heard to say that the value for
purposes of court fee in any pointed circumstances
could be affixed at a lesser or tentative amount."
21. The reliance placed by the learned counsels for the petitioners
on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra)
is ill-founded inasmuch as the Supreme Court therein was considering
a claim for mesne profits and the liberty granted by the High Court to
the plaintiff therein to claim damages/mesne profits in a separate Suit.
It was in that context that the Supreme Court observed that in a case
where damages are required to be calculated, for example, future
mesne profits, a fixed court fee is to be paid, but on the quantum
determined by the Court, the balance court fee would have to be paid
when final decree is to be prepared. The "damages" mentioned therein
were clearly in the nature of future mesne profits which were yet to be
determined by the Court.
22. As far as the judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
cited by the learned counsels for the petitioners are concerned, apart
from the fact that they are not binding on this Court, even otherwise,
they have been doubted and not followed even by the Punjab &
Haryana High Court.
23. As an exemplar, in Kushalpal Singh & Ors. v. Fortis Healtcare
Limited & Ors., (Judgment dated 05.03.2020 in Civil Revision No.
5931 of 2019), the Punjab & Haryana High Court considered the
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 12
conflicting decisions of that Court on the issue of proper court fee to
be affixed in the Suits claiming damages, and held that where specific
amount of damages/compensation is being claimed, the court fee has
to be paid on such amount. The Court further held as under:
"16. Therefore, in view of the above discussion,
though there are differing views in judgments of co-
ordinate Benches of this court, with this Bench
respectfully agreeing with the view held in Ranjit
Kaurs' and Manjeet Singhs' cases (both supra), it
would otherwise have been necessary to refer the
matter to a Division Bench; however, firstly, in view of
the fact that in both those cases the contrary view of
this court in Chowhans', Hemrajs' and Subhash
Chander Goels' cases were duly noticed, with the
'subsequent Benches' still having come to a conclusion,
after discussing the provisions of the Act, that court fee
would be payable ad valorem on the specific amount of
damages claimed in the suit, and moreover the order of
the Supreme Court having now in any case made that
clear in Chowhans' case itself, it is not considered
necessary to refer the matter to a larger Bench."
24. Reference in this regard may also be had to the judgment of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ranjit Kaur & Ors. v. Punjab State
Electricity Board & Ors., 2006 SCC OnLine P&H 1095, holding that
in Suit claiming damages ad valorem court fee needs to be affixed.
25. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the orders passed by
the learned Trial Court(s) in the present petitions. However, as both
the Suits are at an initial stage, it shall be open to the petitioners to file
applications seeking amendment in their respective plaints, if so
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 13
advised, to claim a lower amount of damages, and pay ad valorem
court fee on the amount which may be so claimed.
26. The petitions are therefore dismissed with the above
observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MARCH 18, 2021/Arya/P
CM(M) 106/2021 & CM(M) 127/2021 Page 14
