Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Remands Suit Valuation Dispute Back to High Court for Fresh Consideration - Emphasizes Expeditious Disposal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Supreme Court has remanded a long-standing civil suit valuation dispute back to the High Court for a fresh and comprehensive consideration. The case revolves around the issue of ad valorem court fee for a suit seeking declaration and cancellation of property documents. The two-judge bench, comprising Hon'ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon'ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, passed the order on July 28, 2023, after hearing the appeal challenging the High Court's earlier order.

The dispute stems from a civil suit filed in 2011 titled "Sh. Raj Pal Sharma & Anr. Vs. Smt. Pritam Devi & Ors." before the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The Trial Court dismissed applications for amendment of the plaint and subsequently rejected the entire plaint due to improper valuation and payment of court fees.

The High Court, in its earlier order, had permitted the respondent-plaintiff to amend the plaint, but the nature of the amendment sought was not clearly mentioned. The Supreme Court observed, "Various aspects of the matter arising from the application for amendment of the plaint were considered in detail by the Trial Court... without going into the sustainability or otherwise of such conclusions and findings, the High Court... set them aside and permitted the respondent to amend the plaint..."

The primary contention before the Trial Court was related to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. The Trial Court had considered the law laid down in previous cases and held that the plaintiff was obliged to value the suit identically for court fee and jurisdiction, except for exceptions provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870.

The Supreme Court emphasized that several questions of relevance and importance remained unaddressed in the High Court's order. Therefore, the bench remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration. The Court directed the High Court to allow both parties to present all legally available contentions to arrive at a proper decision in the matter. The apex court also urged the High Court to dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Date of Decision: July 28, 2023

B.P. Naagar & Ors. vs Raj Pal Sharma   

Latest Legal News