The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that a plaint cannot be dismissed solely on the grounds of insufficient stamping or the failure to affix the proper court fee, even when supported by evidence such as a spot map or witness statements.
The court ruled that such procedural deficiencies should not result in the outright rejection of the plaint and that the plaintiff must be allowed to rectify these issues within a timeline set by the court.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, presiding over the matter, made it clear that the provision under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) allows the court to require the plaintiff to supply the necessary stamp papers within a fixed period.
While adjudicating the matter, the court observed, “even if the plaint is not sufficiently stamped, then also the plaintiff can be required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp papers within a timeline. There would be no occasion for rejection of the plaint straightway on the ground that the same is insufficiently stamped.”
The case involved an application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, seeking the rejection of the plaint on the grounds that it was insufficiently stamped and lacked the proper court fee, as required by the Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act.
This application was grounded in the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness and a spot map that estimated the reproduction cost at over Rs. 41 lakhs. The defendants contended that the plaintiff’s failure to sufficiently stamp the plaint and affix the appropriate court fee warranted its rejection.
However, the trial court dismissed the defendants’ application on June 3, 2024. In reviewing this decision, the High Court upheld the trial court’s ruling, emphasizing that the application for rejection of the plaint was unjustified.
Justice Dua noted that the spot map and the statement of PW-10 were relevant pieces of evidence, but their evidentiary value needed to be assessed during the arguments and final hearing of the case. The court concluded that these factors alone could not serve as a basis for rejecting the plaint at this stage.
In her judgment, Justice Dua reiterated the legal principles under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which stipulate that a plaint can only be rejected if it fails to disclose a cause of action, is undervalued, or if the relief claimed is barred by law, among other grounds.
The court further noted that, even in cases where the plaint is insufficiently stamped, the provision mandates that the plaintiff be given an opportunity to correct the deficiency within a time specified by the court.
The High Court, after considering all aspects of the case, dismissed the petition filed by the defendants, thereby upholding the trial court’s order. Justice Dua ruled that no interference was warranted with the trial court’s decision, and as a result, the defendants’ application for the rejection of the plaint was denied.
Case Title: Shakuntala Devi & Ors Versus Kewal Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 43
