Evidently taking note of the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to comply with the directions under order dated 01.07.2017 and to pay the balance Court fee. It was submitted that in terms of Section 2 (2), CPC defining the expression “decree”, the said definition would take in rejection of plaint as well and, therefore, a substantive right to file an appeal against the said order of rejection of plaint is available under Section 96, CPC and when such a substantive right to file an appeal is available under Section 96, CPC, it is impermissible to avail the remedy of revision under Section 115 of the CPC. For the same reason, the right to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is also not available in such cases. (Para 9)
A bare perusal of the impugned order of the High Court would reveal that the sole reason assigned therein is actually founded on the law regarding the requirement or otherwise to pay ad valorem Court fee by a non-party to a sale deed in respect of which a declaration is sought by him. In fact, there is no conflict in view between the courts below on that question. (Para 11)
It is to be noted that despite all the aforesaid circumstances and involvement of many questions of relevance and importance, without even referring to the amendment sought before the High Court, it only held that the petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint. If what was actually prayed by this plaintiff/respondent before the Trial Court by way of amendment was the one (referred to hereinbefore) which stands granted as per the impugned order of the High Court, then a question may crop up whether the question of ad valorem Court fee would survive for consideration thereafter. Needless to say, another question may also crop up for consideration whether the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi could proceed with the suit further when once the amendment is allowed as above and whether, the suit, thereafter, be presented before the lowest court having the jurisdiction. In other words, whether the court of Additional District Judge-II, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi could proceed to frame the issues and adjudicate them, thereafter. (Para 18)
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
Citation: 2023 STPL(Web) 115 SC
B.P. Naagar & ors. Vs. Raj Pal Sharma
Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020)-Decided on 28-07-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-STPLWeb-115-SC.pdf
