P.Swarnakumari vs Mr.Raavi Venkateswara Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 1072 AP

          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

               CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.364 of 2022

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the plaint

was returned at the stage of scrutiny, this Court is inclined to

dispose of the matter, even without issuing notice to the

respondents.

2. The petitioner presented a plaint under Section 26 and

Order VII, Rules 1 to 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the

Court of XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, vide

G.L.606/2021 on 25.3.2021 seeking partition of the plaint

schedule property. The said plaint was returned by docket

order dated 30.8.2021, which reads as follows:

"Heard the counsel for the plaintiff through BJVC. Perused the record and the submissions made to the objections of the Office. As the plaintiff is requesting the claim on Codicil dated 04.10.2015, the plaintiff is directed to value the claim on the market value of the property to the extent of the share claimed under Section 34(1) of A.P. C.F. and S.V.Act.

Hence, returned."

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present

Civil Revision Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that

the docket order dated 30.8.2021 returning the plaint is legally

unsustainable. He submits that the Trial Court failed to

consider Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act

(for short, the Act), in a proper perspective and erroneously

directed the petitioner to value the claim on the market value

of the property. He further submits that while considering the

value of the suit, only the averments in the plaint are required

to be taken into consideration. However, the learned Trial

Court has gone further into the matter beyond the plaint

averments and the same is not permissible in law. Learned

counsel, in support of his contentions, places reliance on

N.Savithri vs. N.Hanmappa1, and B.Anusha vs. B.Laxmikanth

Reddy2.

4. In N.Savithri, the plaintiffs therein sought for partition

and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties. The

Trial Court taking into consideration the sale deeds said to

have been executed by the defendants therein, returned the

plaint for payment of Court Fee on the basis of the valuation of

the properties, as per the sale deeds. Learned Judge while

referring to Section 34 of the Act, inter alia opined that the

Trial Court could not have gone by the contents of the

documents to the exclusion of the plaint averments and

allowed the Revision Petition with a direction to the Trial Court

to accept the Court Fee under Section 34(2) of the Act.

Learned Judge also opined that in the event the issue of

valuation of the suit and payment of proper Court Fee thereon

arises at the subsequent stage, the Trial Court would always be

at liberty to take recourse to use of such power.

5. Further, in B.Anusha (cited supra), which is also a

matter pertaining to partition of properties and return of the

2017 (1) ALT 287

2004 (3) ALD 274

plaint for payment of adequate Court Fee, a Learned Judge

while reiterating the legal position opined that for determining

Court Fee, the averments made in the plaint have to be taken

into consideration. The Learned Judge while allowing the

Revision Petition held that the said order would not preclude

the Trial Court from framing an issue, if an objection is raised

by the defendants with respect to payment of Court Fee or the

Trial Court is always at liberty to issue cheque slip at any

stage, under Section 11 thereof.

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner and in the light of the expression of

the Learned Judges in the above referred Judgments, this

Court finds merit in the submissions made by learned counsel

for the petitioner. The above referred Judgments, in the

considered view of this Court, are applicable to the case on

hand.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

Learned Trial Court is directed to accept the Court Fee in

respect of the suit in question under Section 34(2) of the Act

and proceed with the matter, in accordance with Law. No

costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications,

if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J February 22, 2022.

vasu