Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Mandatory Injunction Not 'Consequential' To Relief Of Declaration: MP High Court Asks Plaintiff To Pay Separate Court Fee

Last week, Madhya Pradesh High Court directed a plaintiff to pay the ad-valorem court fees in a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction since the court found that the injunction sought for was not consequential to the prayer of declaration made. Hence, in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the stand taken by the trial court in an Order VII Rule 11 application preferred by the respondents, the High Court concurred with the decision rendered by the lower court.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi held that the declaration and the relief claimed as consequential in the plaint are 'very much distinct to each other'. The court further elucidated in the order that the relief of mandatory injunction and its nature in the plaint is such that it stands out as an independent claim for the plaintiff himself.

Earlier, in the plaint, a declaration was sought to the effect that the direction issued by Government Kamla Nehru Kanya Uchchatar Mahavidyalaya, Bhopal and the District Education Officer to grant the retiral dues of a teacher in favour of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents is null and void. Moreover, a relief of mandatory injunction was also sought for granting the retiral dues to the plaintiff instead.

“….the Court has rightly observed that although a declaration was claimed, but by a mandatory injunction claiming whatever amount was to be paid towards the retiral dues of late employee in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 be paid in favour of plaintiff/petitioner is not a relief consequential to the said declaration. By the said relief, the plaintiff is not only depriving the defendants to get the relief, which is already granted in their favour, but the plaintiff is also claiming that the said amount be paid to him…”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur observed in the order.

Further, the bench sitting at Jabalpur noted in the order that the reliefs of declaration and mandatory injunction should be valued separately and ad valorem court fees must be paid. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiff in the original suit as devoid of merits.

Before the single judge bench, the petitioner argued that the relief of injunction in a suit for declaration is not separate. Since the relief is consequential to the declaration sought, no separate court fee needs to be paid, submitted the counsel for the petitioner after relying on a 2007 decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

However, the court opined that the cited case law can't be applied to the facts and circumstances of the current case. In Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta & Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1247, Delhi High Court had relied on relevant case laws to note that the substance of the plaint must be examined rather than the form of it to determine if a relief sought for is consequential or not. In this judgment, Delhi High Court also relied upon the judgment in Hans Raj Kalra v. Kishan Lal Kalra (1976) where it was stated that “A relief is consequential to a declaration if it follows on such a declaration and depends on it”. In Sujata Sharma, the court further pointed out the distinction between 'further relief' and 'consequential relief'.

Section 7 (iv) (c) of Court Fees Act does not contemplate that all 'further reliefs' based on the cause of action in the declaratory suit would be 'consequential reliefs' as well, the court had observed in Sujata Sharma.

Case Title: Bhagwanlal Sharma v. Government Kamla Nehru Kanya Uchchatar Mahavidyalaya, Through Principal & Ors.

Case No: Misc. Petition No. 2306 OF 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 18

Click Here To Read/ Download Order