Suit Cannot Be Dismissed As Not Maintainable For Non-Payment Of Proper Court Fee: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that a suit cannot be dismissed as not maintainable on account of non-payment of proper court fee.
The Court had observed that “there can be no partial rejection of the plaint. At the most, the relief sought for could have been refused by the Court on account of nonpayment of Court Fee which would have to be done after registering the case and following the due procedure.”
A Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, “The issue of Court Fee being appropriate or not is not one which touches on the maintainability of a suit. At the most, the aspect of proper Court Fee not being paid would be one which is to be determined in terms of Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for - where the relief claimed is undervalued, the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the Court, failing to do so, then in that event the plaint could be rejected.”
Advocate Srinivas B. Naik represented the petitioner.
The Court referred to Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the CPC which determines the proper court fee to be paid and explained that “where the relief claimed is undervalued, the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the Court, failing to do so, then in that event the plaint could be rejected.”
The Court remarked that the trial court could have applied the mentioned rule, calculated the deficit court fee, and then called upon the plaintiff to make payment within the fixed time. Only if the deficit court fee remained unpaid, could the plaint have been rejected.
However, the Court stated that Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC would not be applicable since the petitioner had sought the relief of specific performance and for the declaration of sale deeds to be null and void. The Court noted that a proper court fee had already been paid for specific performance since no objection was raised by the office of the trial court.
The Court held that dismissal of a suit as not maintainable on account of non-payment of court fee was not permissible in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 38 of the Act.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition.
Cause Title: K.H. Mallikarjuna v. Smt. Mahabunni & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-D:3515)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Srinivas B. Naik and K. Y. Manjunath
