Telangana High Court
State Of Telangana And Another vs Yerra Janardhan on 17 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2268, 2315, 2341,
2358 and 2427 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Since all these Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of
the issue, they are analogously heard together and being
disposed of by this common order.
2. Civil Revision Petition No.2268 of 2022: This Civil
Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order
dated 06.06.2022 passed in I.A.No. 423 of 2022 in A.S. No. 13 of
2020 by the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda. By the
impugned order, the petition filed under Section 24(b) of TSCF
and SV Act read with Section 151 of the CPC to permit the
respondents to pay the Court fee and declare them as owner of
the schedule property, was allowed by the trial Court.
3. Civil Revision Petition No.2315 of 2022: This Civil
Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order
dated 06.06.2022 passed in I.A.No. 424 of 2022 in A.S. No. 14 of
2020 by the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda. By the
impugned order, the petition filed under Section 24(b) of TSCF
and SV Act read with Section 151 of the CPC to permit the
SKS,J
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2268, 2315, 2341, 2358 and 2427 of 2022
respondents to pay the Court fee and declare them as owner of
the schedule property, was allowed by the trial Court..
4. Civil Revision Petition No.2341 of 2022: This Civil
Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order
dated 06.06.2022 passed in I.A.No. 421 of 2022 in A.S. No. 11
of 2020 by the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda. By the
impugned order, the petition filed under Section 24(b) of TSCF
and SV Act read with Section 151 of the CPC to permit the
respondents to pay the Court fee and declare them as owner of
the schedule property, was allowed by the trial Court.
5. Civil Revision Petition No.2358 of 2022: This Civil
Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order
dated 06.06.2022 passed in I.A. No. 425 of 2022 in A.S. No. 15
of 2020 by the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda.By the
impugned order, the petition filed under Section 24(b) of TSCF
and SV Act read with Section 151 of the CPC to permit the
respondents to pay the Court fee and declare them as owner of
the schedule property, was allowed by the trial Court.
6. Civil Revision Petition No.2427 of 2022: This Civil
Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order
dated 06.06.2022 passed in I.A. No. 422 of 2022 in A.S. No. 12
SKS,J
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2268, 2315, 2341, 2358 and 2427 of 2022
of 2020 by the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda.By the
impugned order, the petition filed under Section 24(b) of TSCF
and SV Act read with Section 151 of the CPC to permit the
respondents to pay the Court fee and declare them as owner of
the schedule property, was allowed by the trial Court.
7. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will
be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
8. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed O.S.
Nos. 31, 32 of 1993 and 46, 47, 48 of 1995 before the Senior
Civil Judge at Nalgonda (for short 'the trial Court' )for declaration
of title and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit
schedule properties and the trial Court vide common judgment
dated 22.03.2018 while partly allowing the suits observed that
the plaintiffs sought for declaration of the title without paying
the Court fee and directed the defendants to pay the mesne
profits by vacating the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the
same, the defendants filed A.S.Nos.11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of 2020
before the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda (for short 'the
Appellate Court'). During the pendency of the appeal, the
plaintiffs filed I.A. Nos. 421, 422, 423, 424 and 425 of 2022 for
SKS,J
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2268, 2315, 2341, 2358 and 2427 of 2022
permitting them to pay the Court fee and also to declare them as
owner of the schedule properties.
9. By the impugned orders dated 06.06.2022, the Appellate
Court has allowed the I.As. Hence, the present revision petitions.
10. Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration
appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri Jella Nagaraj,
learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material
available on record.
11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted
that though there is no appeal filed by the respondents, the
Appellant Court has erroneously allowed the I.As. He further
submitted that the Appellate Court ought to have considered
that Original Suits and Appeal Suit pertains to the years 1993,
1995 and 2020 respectively, however, the I.As. are filed in the
year 2022 with an inordinate delay. Hence, he prayed the Court
to allow these Civil Revision Petitions.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners and sought to sustain the impugned orders of the
Appellate Court stating that the Appellate Court has rightly
allowed the I.As.,as per the provisions of law. He further
SKS,J
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2268, 2315, 2341, 2358 and 2427 of 2022
submitted that Section 149 of the CPC empowers the Court in its
discretion at any stage can allow the person to pay the deficit
Court fee. He also submitted that as per Section 3(a) of the Court
fee Act, a Court of appeals can determine the proper Court fee
payable either on its own motion or on the application. In
support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of the
Apex Court in Sardar Tajender Singh Ghambir and another
v. Sardar Gurpreet Singh and others 1 and prayed the Court
to dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions.
13. In case of Sardar Tajender Singh Ghambir and
another (Supra 1), the Apex Court at paragraph Nos.13 to 15
held as under:
"13. Secondly, the High Court failed to consider
clause (ii) of Section 12 of 1870 Act which reads:
(ii) But whenever any such suit comes before a Court
of appeal, reference or revision, if such Court
considers that the said question has been wrongly
decided to the detriment of the revenue, it shall
require the party by whom such fee has been paid,
to pay within such time as may be fixed by it, so
much additional fee as would have been payable
had the question been rightly decided. If such
additional fee is not paid within the time fixed and
the defaulter is the appellant, the appeal shall be
dismissed, but if the defaulter is the respondent the
Court shall inform the Collector who shall recover
SKS,J
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2268, 2315, 2341, 2358 and 2427 of 2022
the deficiency as if it were an arrear of land
revenue.
14. The above provision clearly empowers the
appellate court to direct a party to make up deficit
court-fee in the plaint at the appellate stage. The
power exercised by the first appellate court can be
traced to clause (ii) of Section 12 of 1870 Act as
well.
15. The order of the first appellate court being
eminently just and proper, in our view, there was no
justification for the High Court to invoke its power
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
interfere with an order which effectively advanced
the cause of justice."
(verbatim reproduced)
14. For better appreciation of the facts of the instant case, it
is apt to refer Section 149 of the CPC which reads as follows:
"Section 149. Power to make up deficiency of court-
fees
Where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any
document by the law for the time being in force relating to
Court-fees has not been paid, the Court may, in its
discretion, at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee
is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of
such Court-fee; and upon such payment the document, in
respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same
force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first
instance."
15. A plain reading of the above would abundantly make it
clear that the Courts have discretionary power to allow a party to
make payment of deficient Court fee at any stage of the
proceedings.
SKS,J
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2268, 2315, 2341, 2358 and 2427 of 2022
16. Section 3(a) of the Court fee Act also says that a Court of
Appeal either of its own motion or on the application can
determine the proper Court fee payable.
17. On the aforesaid touchstone, in the instant case, it is
noteworthy that the revision petitioners filed Appeal
Suits Nos.11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of 2020 against the common
judgment dated 22.03.2018 passed in Original Suits Nos. 31, 32
of 1993 and 46, 47, 48 of 1995 by the trial Court and the trial
Court partly allowed the suits only to the extent of directing the
revision petitioners to pay the mesne profits by vacating the suit
schedule properties and relief of declaration of title is refused on
the ground that Court fee was not paid by the parties.
Pertinently, the respondents have neither filed separate Appeal
nor cross objections to the aforesaid Appeal Suits filed by the
revision petitioners and obtained the impugned orders by filing
I.As in the Appeal Suits filed by the revision petitioners.
Whereas, Section 149 of the CPC empowers the Court, at any
stage, can direct the persons for payment of proper Court fee
and also the Apex Court in Sardar Tajender Singh Ghambir
and another (Supra 1) observed that appellate Court can permit
the person to pay the Court fee on its own also. In view of the
foregoing analysis and peculiar facts and circumstances of the
SKS,J
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2268, 2315, 2341, 2358 and 2427 of 2022
case, this Court, having respectful agreement with the view
taken by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, is of the
considered opinion that no infirmity is discernable with the
impugned orders passed by the trial Court warranting
interference by this Court and the revision petitions are liable to
be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed
confirming the impugned orders dated 06.06.2022 passed in I.A.
Nos. 421, 422, 423, 424 and 425 of 2022 in Appeal Suit Nos.11,
12, 13, 14 and 15 of 2020 by the Principal District Judge at
Nalgonda. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 17.04.2025
gms
