In a recent judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, upheld the decision of a lower court to dismiss a petition filed by Shakuntala Devi and others, challenging the sufficiency of stamp duty on a plaint. The case, Shakuntala Devi & Ors. vs. Kewal Singh & Ors., revolved around the legal question of whether a plaint can be rejected outright due to insufficient stamping, as argued by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Background of the Case
The case originated from a civil suit filed by Kewal Singh (respondent No.1) in 2014, which had progressed to the evidence stage. Kewal Singh, the plaintiff, had presented his evidence, including the testimony of witness No.10 (PW-10) and a spot map (Ext. PW-10/A) reflecting a reproduction cost of Rs. 41,06,286. After the plaintiff closed his evidence, the defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, arguing that the plaint was insufficiently stamped and that the proper court fee had not been affixed in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act.
Legal Issues Involved
The petitioners sought the rejection of the plaint on the grounds of insufficient stamping, contending that the plaintiff failed to affix the proper court fee based on the valuation presented by PW-10. The primary legal issue was whether a plaint could be dismissed outright due to the lack of appropriate stamp duty without offering the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the deficiency.
Court’s Decision
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua dismissed the petition, ruling that the lower court was justified in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court held that the application was prematurely filed, relying solely on the evidence of PW-10, which did not warrant the immediate rejection of the plaint.
Justice Dua emphasized that, as per Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC, a plaint is not automatically rejected for insufficient stamping. The court has the authority to direct the plaintiff to correct the stamp deficiency within a specified timeframe. The judgment clarified that the evidentiary value of the spot map (Ext. PW-10/A) presented by the plaintiff would be considered during the final arguments, not as a standalone basis for rejection.
“A mere deficiency in stamp duty does not justify the immediate rejection of a plaint,” the court observed, underscoring the necessity of allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to rectify such defects.
Parties and Representation
The petitioners, Shakuntala Devi and others, were represented by Advocate Rohit, standing in for Mr. Sumit Sood. Notably, no representation appeared for the respondents during this hearing.
