Scrutiny of a plaint: undervaluation, deficit court fee and a limitation objection
On 3 April 2025 the Original Side filing counter of the High Court places a plaint before you, as Examiner, for scrutiny. The plaintiff seeks a declaration that a registered sale deed dated 4 June 2019, executed by her late father's power-of-attorney holder in favour of the second defendant, is void, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. Both reliefs are valued at Rs 2,000 and ad valorem court fee of Rs 400 is paid. The Basic Value Register extract filed with the plaint shows the property's market value as Rs 62,00,000. The plaint avers that the plaintiff was employed in Dubai from 2018 to 2024, that she learnt of the deed only on 18 January 2025, and that she is ready to pay any deficit fee. The vakalatnama bears the signature of the first plaintiff only, one page of the plaint is unnumbered, and no certified copy of the impugned deed is annexed. Two defendants have already entered appearance through counsel.
1. Identify the defects disclosed by the papers, separate the formal from the substantive, and state exactly what the office should do about the court fee, with computation.
Read the worked answer
Formal defects: the vakalatnama is unsigned by the second plaintiff (a separate vakalat or a signed consent is required before appearance is accepted for her); a page of the plaint is unnumbered, which defeats the indexing and the check-slip cross-reference; the certified copy of the impugned deed is not a statutory annexure to a plaint, so it is a curable omission to be called for later, not a ground to return the plaint.
Substantive defect: valuation. Where a declaration is sought with consequential relief, fee is payable on the market value of the property and not on a nominal figure - Section 24(a) of the Telangana Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 read with Schedule I. On Rs 62,00,000 at 5% ad valorem the fee is Rs 3,10,000; credit for Rs 400 leaves a deficit of about Rs 3,09,600 (confirm the current Schedule rate before the figure is entered).
Course of action: number the plaint, enter the defects in the check slip, and place it before the court for an order under Section 149 CPC fixing time to pay. The Examiner cannot reject the plaint for undervaluation; only on default of the court's order does Order VII Rule 11(b)/(c) CPC become available.
2. Should the plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by limitation? Frame the office note.
Read the worked answer
No. Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) is permissible only where the plaint, read as it stands and without adding to it, shows the suit to be barred. Here the deed is of 2019 and the suit of 2025, so the three-year period is prima facie exceeded, but the plaint pleads that the plaintiff was abroad until 2024 and learnt of the deed on 18 January 2025. Which article applies - Article 58 (declaration), Article 59 (cancelling an instrument, running from knowledge) or the residuary Article 113 - is itself arguable; all three prescribe three years, but the starting point is disputed.
The pleaded date of knowledge is a question of fact that cannot be decided on the plaint's own averments, and the plaint also explains the absence. The correct office note is therefore: 'limitation - disputed question of fact and law, not apparent on the face of the plaint; not a ground for rejection; record for the court and raise as an issue.' Lumping it with the curable defects and returning the plaint would be wrong and would invite an appeal.
3. The plaintiff re-presents the plaint within the time fixed with a treasury receipt for the deficit fee, but the second plaintiff's vakalatnama is still unsigned and the pagination has not been corrected. What does the Examiner do?
Read the worked answer
On re-presentation the Examiner must first link the papers to the original check slip, then verify the receipt against the amount and head of fee ordered by the court - not merely its face value - and note the payment in the order sheet and the register. The limitation objection stands recorded and needs no fresh action.
The two surviving defects are formal and do not defeat the numbering already granted; refusing to place the papers for that reason would be an excess of the scrutiny function. The Examiner records them afresh in a supplementary check slip, ensures the plaint is re-paginated and the index corrected, and places the matter before the court with a note that the second plaintiff has not signed the vakalat and cannot be treated as represented until she does. If the court has fixed a peremptory date for compliance with its Section 149 CPC order and the fee item is satisfied, no report for rejection lies on that head; only a fresh default on the fee would justify a report under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC.