Madras High Court
G.Karthik vs T.S.V.Giri on 23 April, 2012
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:23.04.2012 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD).No.1588 of 2012 G.Karthik ... Petitioner vs. 1. T.S.V.Giri 2. R.Duraisamy 3. K.K.Rajendran 4. K.Manohar 5. S.Kathirvel 6. M.Subramani 7. R.Kasi Gounder 8. B.Mohammed Shafi 9. N.Natarajan .. Respondents Civil revision petition filed against the judgment dated 02.02.2012 passed in O.S.No.37 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal District. For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan ORDER
Animadverting upon the order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Court, Namakkal District in O.S.No.37 of 2011, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the lower Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who would detail and delineate, express and expatiate the facts to the effect that the revision petitioner filed the suit as informa pauperis for the following reliefs:
"(a)(i) To adjudge two sale deeds dated 22.01.2007 (Document No.1175/2007, 1176/2007) and two sale deeds dated 29.01.2007 (bearing document numbers 1177/2007, 1178/2007, SRO, Komarapalayam) are void and order the same to be delivered up before this Honourable Court and cancelled.
(ii) To direct to send the copy of the Decree to SRO, Komarapalayam to note on the copy of the instruments in the Registration Books the fact of their cancellation;
(b) To direct the defendants 3 & 5 to deliver possession of the suit properties on or before date to be fixed by this Court, failing within directing the delivery of possession of the same through an officer of this Court; and
(c) For costs."
4. Ultimately the suit was decreed exparte. However, the lower Court in the last paragraph of the judgment stated thus:
"The plaintiff at first, filed suit as POP and POP was allowed and the suit numbered as O.S.37/11 now it seems that according to plaint, the properties worth about one crore and court fee payable sum of Rs.7,50,000.50. Now, by decreeing the suit, the plaintiff will be having the property worth about one crore and hence, the plaintiff is directed to pay court fees sum of Rs.7,50,000.50 and conditional decree is passed to pay the court fees. After payment of court fees, the plaintiff is entitled to copy of the decree. Time for payment of court fee is one month."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court cannot go to the extent of mandating that the decree itself should not be issued, but could only pass orders in commensurate with Order 33 Rule 10 of CPC, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"10. Costs where indigent person succeeds Where the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the Court shall calculate the amount of court-fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as an indigent person; such amount shall be recoverable by the State Government from any party ordered by the decree to pay the same, and shall be a first charge on the subject-matter of the suit."
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court was justified in pointing out that the decree itself should not be issued without collecting the Court fee?
7. In my considered opinion, the proper procedure would be thus:
In commensurate with Order 33 Rule 10 of CPC extracted supra, a Judge has to pass orders and he has got the discretion to direct either the plaintiff or the defendant to pay the Court fee. In this case, the lower Court in its discretion thought fit to direct the plaintiff to pay it, with which this Court is not concerned in this revision petition. In such a case, in the last paragraph of the judgment as well as in the decree, the direction should be thus:
The plaintiff shall pay the Court fee of Rs.7,50,000.50 (Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand and fifty paise only) within a period of three months from this date, as a condition precedent for getting the decree executed. Accordingly the decree shall follow.
8. A copy of the decree shall be sent to the Collector concerned to recover the Court fee, in the event of the plaintiff not paying the same. Accordingly, the last paragraph of the judgment shall be amended and the decree shall be issued.
Accordingly, this civil revision petition is ordered. No costs.
Gms 23.04.2012
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NOTE TO OFFICE: Issue on 25.04.2012
To
The Principal District Court, Namakkal District.
G.RAJASURIA,J.,
gms
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1588 of 2012
23.04.2012