Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.@mdashInvoking supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, order (Annexure
P-1) dated 21.3.2014 of the lower court whereby the application of the petitioner-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the
plaint for being allegedly insufficiently stamped was declined, has been impugned in this civil revision petition.
2. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the petitioner while going through the paper book.
3. In response to a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 15.10.2006, the petitioner-defendant was required to file written statement
but had been postponing the same. Instead of filing the written statement, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by the defendant
(now petitioner) for rejection of the plaint, claiming that since valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction had been assessed
by the non-applicant/respondent/plaintiff at Rs. 30,95,000/-, court fee of Rs. 1,28,170/- was required to be paid.
4. This application was resisted by the non-applicant/respondent/plaintiff claiming that the requisite court fee had already been deposited for which
a certificate issued by the State Bank of India for deposit of an amount of Rs. 1,28,170/- as court fee, had been duly appended.
5. Since it is not disputed that the non-applicant/respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement with non-judicial
stamp receipt for an amount of Rs. 1,28,170/-, there was no sidetracking the matter by him. Plea of the applicant/petitioner/defendant that non-
judicial stamp receipt cannot be considered for the purposes of affixation of court fee has been specifically dealt with by the lower court in the
impugned order, relevant portion whereof is as under:
After having heard learned counsel for both the parties and after having perused the case file, this court has arrived at the conclusion that the
application in hand deserves dismissal and no case is made out for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC because it is an admitted
fact that at the time of filing of the present suit the respondents have placed on the file non-judicial stamp receipt for the amount of Rs. 1,28,170/-.
Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to satisfy this court that as to why the said amount which has been deposited by the respondent cannot
be considered to be court fee specially when it has been issued for the purpose of court fee. Despite a specific query made by the court, learned
counsel for the applicant could not satisfy this court that what material difference was going to make if the said amount of court fee has been
deposited against a non-judicial stamp paper which has been issued under the head of court fee or in the alter nature the said amount was
deposited under different head because in both the eventualities the respondents were required to deposit the amount in the Government account
though under different heads. Hence, there is no justification in allowing the present application and as such application stands dismissed.
6. Even if plea of the applicant/petitioner/defendant that non-judicial stamp receipt cannot be counted towards court fee, after adjudication is found
to be correct, rejection of the plaint even then would not be the consequence, because the non-applicant/respondent/plaintiff would be given time
to make up deficiency in the court fee.
7. It is rather to be noticed that the application was moved merely to delay and dilate the proceedings particularly when written statement was not
being furnished even after seeking many adjournments by the petitioner/defendant.
8. Keeping in view the totality of above facts and circumstances, by affirming the impugned order (Annexure P-1), this civil revision petition, being
without any merit, is dismissed.
9. Nothing observed above shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit.