Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gautam vs Tapidas on 3 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                                               1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                         FA No. 924 of 2023
                                                      (GAUTAM Vs TAPIDAS AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 03-05-2024
                                 Shri (Dr.) Manohar Lal Dalal, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                 Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2023 passed

by the XXth District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No.137/2016.

02. The appellant has valued the appeal @ Rs.15,60,000/-, but paid the fixed court fee of Rs.120/- for the relief of declaration only. Office has raised an objection about the deficit court fee, hence, the Taxing Officer was directed to examine the same and submit a report.

03. As per the report of Taxing Officer, the appellant is liable to pay the deficit court fee @ Rs.1,11,800/- as valuation of the appeal is Rs.15,60,000/-.

04. Shri Dalal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff paid the ad valorem court fee for decree of possession, but this appellant is in possession of the suit land, therefore, he is not liable to pay ad valorem court

fee. Shri Dalal further submits that the appellant be given the liberty to pay the court fee by way of installment.

05. Aforesaid contention is not tenable because there is no such provision in the Court Fee Act for fixing the installment. The court fee is liable to be paid along with the memo of appeal. Even otherwise, there is a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff which is under challenge in this appeal. If the appellant wants to protect his possession by challenging the aforesaid

decree, he is liable to pay the ad valorem court fee, otherwise he may hand over the possession to the plaintiff. Hence, the report of Taxing Officer is hereby accepted.

06. Vide order 10.05.2023, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. Subject to payment of court fee, the status quo as on today be maintained. Let an application under Section 149 of the CPC be filed along with court fee and the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

07. So far as the interim relief is concerned, subject to filing of application under Section 149 of the CPC within a period of four weeks from today, the status quo shall be maintained.

08. Respondent No.1 is directed to file a reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC and the same shall be considered after payment of court fee.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE

Ravi