Allahabad High Court
M/S A.V. Ampoules & Vials Pvt. Ltd. vs Abdul Rasheed And 5 Ors. on 27 April, 2016
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 19
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 88 of 2014
Revisionist :- M/S A.V. Ampoules & Vials Pvt. Ltd.
Opposite Party :- Abdul Rasheed And 5 Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Manu Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Siddharth
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In original suit no. 307/2012, plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owner in possession of disputed building and prayed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in the land, building, unit of plaintiffs present over disputed property. In plaint, valuation of the suit was fixed as Rs. 40,000,00/-, and paid Rs. 500/- as court-fee for the relief sought. In written-statement, inter alia, defendants pleaded that suit is undervalued and court-fees paid is insufficient. On the basis of these pleading, inter alia, issue no.-2 relating to undervaluation of suit, and issue no.- relating to insufficiency of paid court fee were framed by trial court.
3. After affording opportunity of hearing on these preliminary issues no. 2 and 3, trial court (Additional Civil Judge, S.D., Court No.-8, Meerut) had passed the impugned order dated 13.12.2013, by which these issues were decided in negative and in favour of plaintiffs. Aggrieved by which, present revision has been preferred by the defendants of original suit.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that original suit has been filed apparently for the relief of permanent injunction, but in garb of it plaintiff had sought of declaration of ownership of disputed property so that he can get its possession, because he is out of possession and in fact defendants-revisionists are in its possession. He contended that in fact plaintiffs want to acquire possession of disputed property, therefore he should pay ad valorem court-fees according to the valuation of the suit. He further contended that valuation of the property in question is more than what is pleaded in the plaint, therefore the revision should be allowed.
5. The contentions of revisionists were opposed by counsel for the respondents who pleaded that proper valuation of the suit is mentioned in the plaint and proper Court fees have been paid.
6. The court of Civil Judge (S.D.) has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction of hearing of the case. In present matter, it is immaterial whether the valuation of property in question is Rs. 40,000,00/- or more than it. Since any valuation of such property will be within jurisdiction of trial court, therefore valuation of the suit is not going to have any effect on pecuniary jurisdiction of trial court. Therefore the suit's alleged undervaluation will not prejudice the revisionists.
7. In Sri Ratnavaramaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla; AIR 1961 SC 1299 Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"The Court-fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action. By recognising that the defendant was entitled to contest the valuation of the properties in dispute as if it were a matter in issue between him and the plaintiff and by entertaining petitions preferred by the defendant to the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction against the order adjudging court-fee payable on the plaint, all progress in the suit for the trial of the dispute on the merits has been effectively frustrated for nearly five years. We fail to appreciate what grievance the defendant can make by seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate court-fee on his plaint. Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. How by an order relating to the adequacy of the court-fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may feel aggrieved, it is difficult to appreciate. Again, the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by cls. (a) to (c) thereof and may be invoked on the ground of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Subordinate Court or assumption of jurisdiction which the court does not possess or on the ground that the court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The defendant who may believe and even honestly that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior court by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint."
8. So far as the payment of court-fee is concerned, it is settled legal position that it is always a matter between the Court and plaintiff; and the defendants have no legal right to challenge the insufficiency of the court fees. Apart from it on merits, the maximum payable court-fee for the relief of permanent injunction is Rs. 500/- which has already been paid by the plaintiffs. So this finding of trial court in impugned order is not erroneous that proper court-fee had been paid in this matter.
9. So far argument regarding the alleged real intention of plaintiff to acquire possession of disputed property is concerned, this is unacceptable at this stage unless plaintiffs-respondents specifically pray for the relief of possession. Plaintiffs have not prayed such relief in the plaint and they cannot be granted such relief in present form of the plaint.
10. The trial court had discussed factual aspects of the matter in the impugned order and held that defendants have failed to prove that suit is undervalued or paid court-fee is insufficient. This finding appears acceptable in present set of circumstances. Apart from it, the impugned order is not going to have any effect on any right of the revisionists. This order does not amount to 'case decided'. The trial court had not committed any factual or jurisdictional error in passing of the impugned order. It is also pertinent to mention that during proceedings of the case, defendants-revisionists will have right of hearing and adducing their evidence to prove their pleadings. No injustice or irreparable injury is going to be caused to them by the impugned order.
11. In light of above mentioned legal verdicts I am of the opinion that since the matter of payment of Court fees is a matter between plaintiff (present opposite party) and Court, the defendant (revisionist) has no right or locus standii to agitate this matter by revision or by any way. His revision is liable to be dismissed with costs.
12. Relevant portion of Section 115, as amended by C.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) Act, 2003, reads as under :
"115. Revision-
(1) - - -
(2) - - -
(3) The superior court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where,-
(i) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or
(ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.
(4) - - -"
13. In present case if impugned order is allowed to stand, then in all probabilities, there is no chance of finally deciding suit or any right and also there is no probability of occasioning any injustice or irreparable injury to any party. In such a case the impugned order does not affect adversely the legal right of any party. Therefore, present revision cannot succeed.
14. For the reasons discussed above, this revision is dismissed.
15. This order be communicated to the trial court immediately with direction to expedite disposal of the original suit.
Order Date :- 27.4.2016
Sanjeev
