Gujarat High Court
Chamanlal Narshibhai vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Thro ... on 16 April, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/992/2012 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 992 of 2012
==========================================================
CHAMANLAL NARSHIBHAI
Versus
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD THRO DEPUTY ENGINEER &
ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 16/04/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed by the present
petitioner - original plaintiff by seeking quashing and
setting the order dated 02.07.2011 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (S.D.) Jamnagar in Civil Suit No.102 of 2011
below Exh.1 application as well as the order dated
01.11.2011 passed by the respondent No.2. It transpires
that the trial court has passed the order on 02.07.2011
to recover the amount of Rs.4300/-.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the
petitioner in this petition are as such that the petitioner
had filed Civil Suit No. 102 of 2011 in the Court of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/992/2012 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge Jamnagar for
declaration that the electric consumption bill dated
12.07.2010 of Rs.28,352.98 issued by respondent no. 1 is
illegal, unconstitutional and against the provisions of the
Electricity Act, 2003. It is further the case of the
petitioner in this petition are as such that the suit was
dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of
Civil procedure on the ground of jurisdiction.
Subsequently, a notice has been issued to the petitioner
to pay the requisite court fees. Thereafter, the petitioner
submitted his reply dated 10.05.2011 to the notice issued
by the Registrar, Civil Court (S.D.) Jamnagar. It is
further the case of the petitioner in this petition are as
such that the learned Civil judge (S.D.), Jamnagar
passed the order to recover court fees of Rs.4300/- as per
the provisions of the Land Revenue Code. The
Mamlatdar Jamnagar, pursuant to the order passed by
the learned Civil Judge Jamnagar, has passed the order
under Section 155 of the Land Revenue Code for
attachment. The petitioner, therefore, submitted his
objections to the order passed under Section 155 of the
Land Revenue Code by the Mamlatdar Jamnagar. The
Mamlatdar thereafter passed an order under Section 200
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/992/2012 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
of the Land Revenue Code for attachment of the
property of the petitioner in view of the order of the
Civil Court. Hence, the present petition is preferred.
3. Heard Mr. Nitin M. Amin, the learned advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, the learned
advocate for the respondent.
4. Mr. Nitin M. Amin, the learned advocate for the
petitioner, has submitted that, prima facie, the Court has
committed an error in dismissing the suit under the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C.
Furthermore, the Registrar has issued notice, pursuant to
which the impugned order for the recovery of the
amount of Rs. 4300/-, payable towards court fees of the
suit proceeding instituted before the Civil Court (Senior
Division), Jamnagar, and numbered as Civil Suit No. 102
of 2011, is passed. Moreover, he has submitted that the
learned Judge has suo motu fixed the hearing on the
issue of proper jurisdiction, and the suit was initially
registered; thereafter, it is rejected solely on the ground
of jurisdiction. Additionally, he has stated that when the
suit is not adjudicated, as the suit proceedings are not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/992/2012 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
proceeded further, it is improper on the part of the
Registrar to issue notice for the recovery of court fees,
as essentially, the suit proceeding is not adjudicated,
though it is registered. Therefore, he has prayed to allow
this petition by quashing the impugned order, whereby
he has been directed to pay the amount of court fees.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr Dipak R. Dave for
the respondent has supported the order passed by the
trial court and has submitted that the Court has not
committed any error in passing the impugned order and,
therefore, he has prayed to dismiss the present petition.
6.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the
bar. It is needless to mention that once the suit is
instituted, one of the requirements is to present the
amount of court fees by way of producing necessary
court fees stamps. If that is not done at the time of
filing the suit, the Court may grant permission or time
to present the court fees. In the present case, thereafter,
the suit is dismissed on the ground of being barred by
jurisdiction under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d)
of the C.P.C., and subsequently, the Court has found
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/992/2012 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
that the court fees have not been paid, which is required
to be paid as per the provisions of the The Court-Fees
Act. Such demand raised by the Registrar of the Court
is deemed just and proper as it is obligatory on the part
of the plaintiff to pay the court fees whenever the suit
is filed, and that is also required to be paid ad-valorem.
Hence, the trial court has rightly considered this aspect
while deciding the application and passed the order
below Exh.1 application in Regular Civil Suit No.102 of
2011. It is also possible that the Court could have
returned the plaint by resorting to the provisions of
Order VII Rule 10 of the C.P.C. Here, the Court has
referred to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d), and
that order is not challenged by the present petitioner.
6.2 Considering all these aspects, I found that there is
no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the order passed
by the trial court, and the same is in consonance with
law and, therefore, no interference is required to be
called for by this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, more particularly, taking into
account the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Garments Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel reported
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/992/2012 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
in (2022) 4 SCC 181, more particularly, paragraph
Nos.15 to 17 are relevant, wherein it was held that
High Courts while exercising powers under Article 227
does not act as an appellate authority and cannot re-
appreciate evidence and the jurisdiction exercised under
Article 227 is in nature of correctional jurisdiction to set
aside grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of
process of law and High Court cannot substitute its own
view on merits, the present petition is found meritless
and the same is required to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Rule
stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier
shall stand vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
