Adequacy Of Court Fees Has To Be Decided By Joint Registrar, Independent Of Any Objections Recorded By Registry: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has said that it is incumbent on the Joint Registrar to consider the question of adequacy of court fees filed by a party, independent of any objections recorded by the Registry in that regard. "It is underlined that when an objection as to adequacy of Court Fees is raised, it is incumbent upon the learned Joint Registrar to consider the question independently of...
The Delhi High Court has said that it is incumbent on the Joint Registrar to consider the question of adequacy of court fees filed by a party, independent of any objections recorded by the Registry in that regard.
"It is underlined that when an objection as to adequacy of Court Fees is raised, it is incumbent upon the learned Joint Registrar to consider the question independently of any objections recorded by the Registry and to pass appropriate orders," Justice Asha Menon said.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved with the orders of the Joint Registrar dated 8th October, 2021 directing him to pay the deficient Court Fees without fail before the next date of hearing.
The counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the suit had been filed for partition and therefore, only Fixed Court Fees was to be paid. Plaintiff cannot be compelled to pay ad-valorem Court Fees on market value of the properties.
It was therefore the contention that merely because the Registry raised an objection, the Joint Registrar could not have directed the plaintiff to pay the deficient Court Fees without applying its mind to determine whether the Court fees paid was deficient or not.
On the other hand, the defendants objected to the maintainability of the appeal and submitted that no claim in the plaint had been made by the plaintiff of being in part possession of the properties and thus the appeal be dismissed.
"It is settled law that in a suit for possession and partition, if the plaintiff pleads that he is the co-owner of the properties sought to be partitioned and joint possession is pleaded, only fixed Court Fees would be payable under Article 17 (vi) of the Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 even presuming the joint possession of the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff is not in actual possession," the Court said.
The Bench added that unless there is a clear case made out by the defendants of ouster of the plaintiff or the plaintiff himself pleads such ouster, there would be no occasion for the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem fees on the market value of his share as provided under sec. 7 (iv) (b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
On the facts of the case, the Court ordered thus:
"In these circumstances, despite the technicalities that have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent and particularly in view of the fact that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is also pending, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is allowed."
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of the Joint Registrar directing the plaintiff to pay deficient Court Fees.
The main case will now be listed before the Joint Registrar on 20th April, 2022.
Case Title: SHAILENDRA GHAI v. ANIL GHAI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 73