Whether plaintiff should value his appeal on the basis of combined valuation of the plaint and counterclaim where both suit and counter-claim are dismissed?

 Where both suit and counter-claim are dismissed, the subject-matter of the appeal would be the plaint. Hence valuation would be as per the valuation of the plaint and Court fee as payable on the plaint; would be as due and payable thereon. The plaintiff cannot be made to value his appeal on the basis of the combined valuation of the plaint and counterclaim, in respect of which he makes no claim. {Para 48}.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 283 of 2006

Decided On: 05.03.2007

Teofilo Barreto Vs. Sadashiva G. Nasnodkar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: V.C. Daga, J.

Citations: 2007 (4) BomCR 830, 2007 (6) MhLj 1, MANU/MH/0637/2007.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether the District Court (Appellate Court) lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeal when valuation of cross-objection exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court?

 Having noticed the change in old Code and new unamended Code of Civil Procedure, let me now turn to the further legislative change brought about in new Code by virtue of amendment of the year 1976; whereby provisions with respect to counter-claim under Order 8, Rule 6-A to 6-G came to be inserted. Consequent to this insertion provisions of Order 20, Rule 19(1), (2) also came to be amended and the words "counter-claim" were inserted immediately after the words "set off". Thus, by virtue of this amendment, set off and counter-claim are treated at par; and both were brought on the same platform with equal status. Therefore, while interpreting clause, Order 20, Rule 19(2), the same treatment which is given to a decree of set off, will have to be given to a decree in suit in which counter-claim was claimed. The legislative object which led to deletion of Section 216 and enactment of Order 20, Rule 19 in respect of decree of set off shall also hold good in respect of decree from counterclaim. As such decree passed in a suit where counter-claim was preferred has to be treated subject to the same provisions in respect of appeal to which it would have been subject, if no counter-claim had been preferred. If the legislative view is that the decree wherein the set off is claimed should go before the same Appellate Forum to which it would have been subject in normal course in absence of claim for set-off; then so far as the counter-claim is concerned; the same treatment will have to be accorded to a decree passed in a suit where counter-claim was preferred. As an extension of the same principle, the cross objection arising from the decree of set-off and/or counter-claim will have to be given similar treatment in the matter of determination of Appellate Forum. {Para 56}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 283 of 2006

Decided On: 05.03.2007

Teofilo Barreto Vs. Sadashiva G. Nasnodkar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: V.C. Daga, J.

Citations: 2007 (4) BomCR 830, 2007 (6) MhLj 1, MANU/MH/0637/2007.

Print Page

Whether Plaintiff Can Value Suit Differently For Purpose Of Jurisdiction & For Payment Of Court Fees?

 Section 8 of Suit Valuation Act, 1887 puts an obligation on the plaintiff to value the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction identically except for the Exceptions provided in Section 7 paragraph 5, 6, 9, 10 Clause (d) of the Court Fee Act, 1870. 12. It therefore, follows that though it is in the discretion of the plaintiff to value his suit as per his bona fide belief and discretion, but once he has valued his suit in terms of Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, the court fee shall become payable on the same amount in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. The plaintiff cannot adopt a dual policy of valuing his suit at a certain value for the purpose of jurisdiction and for the purpose of payment of court fees. Once the suit has been valued at a certain value, the advolerum court fees has to be paid mandatorily on the same valuation. {Para 11}

13. The plaintiff in the present case has valued his suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.2.5 crores while for the purpose of court fee has assessed each relief at Rs.500/- each It is no doubt true that the law gives a discretion to the plaintiff to value his suit and such discretion as exercised by the plaintiff in mentioning the valuation of the suit must not be interfered by the Court as observed by the Full Bench in Smt. Sheila Devi and Ors. Vs. Sh. Kishan Lal Kalra and Ors. ILR (1974) II Delhi 491. However, once the valuation has been done on a certain value by the plaintiff in exercise of his discretion, he is obliged to pay the court fee on the same amount in terms of Section 8 of the Suit Valuation Act as has been held in the decision of Apex Court in Commercial Aviation T. Co.(supra) and this court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra). 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

 CS(OS) 172/2021

 RAJINDER SINGH BHATIA Vs MANJU BHATIA 

 CORAM: MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

Decided on: 22nd August, 2022 

Print Page

When trial Court has jurisdiction to go into all the issues after remand of case?

 The above noted grievance of the petitioner, as it appears, is on a misconception and understanding the scope of the remand order. When the suit has been remanded to the trial Court for a fresh decision, the trial Court has jurisdiction to go into all the issues and at that stage he has also jurisdiction to go into the valuation of the suit and the matter relating to sufficiency or insufficiency of the Court-fee paid. Therefore, the act of the learned Civil Judge is found neither to be illegal nor unjust or improper. Hence, on the basis of such misconception and misunderstanding of the petitioner, his grievance is devoid of merit to be considered.

Orissa High Court

Purandar Pradhan vs Gati Pradhan And 3 Ors. on 11 December, 2003

Equivalent citations: 97 (2004) CLT 65, 2004 I OLR 56,AIR 2004 NOC411 orissa

Bench: P Tripathy

Print Page