Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Valluri Sri Vasudeva Siva Prasad vs Alluri Kurminaidu And Others on 19 June, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(5)ALD1, 1998(4)ALT384, 1999 A I H C 2588, (1998) 5 ANDHLD 1 (1998) 4 ANDH LT 384, (1998) 4 ANDH LT 384
Author: V. Bhaskara Rao
Bench: V. Bhaskara Rao
ORDER
1. This revision petition arises from the order in I.A.No. 5 of 1997 in O.S.No. 374 of 1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Salur holding that the Court fee paid in the above suit is not correct and directing the revision petitioner - plaintiff and Respondent No.8 to pay the proper Court fee.
2. The facts giving rise to this C.R.P. are as follows:
The revision petitioner and Respondent No.8 filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of AC. 104.75 cents of land claiming that they have purchased the same along with 24 others whom they represent. The property has been valued notionally at Rs. 2,000/- for the purpose of Court-fee. The respondents filed a written statement contesting the suit and issues were framed and thereafter the trial also commenced. The revision petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and also marked some documents. At this stage, the respondents filed I.A.No.5 of 1997 under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking a direction to the revision petitioner and Respondent No.8 to pay the Court-fee on each relief in respect of each plot of the plaint schedule property. It is asserted in the affidavit of Respondent No.1 that the entire extent of Ac. 104.75 cents of land was purchased by the plaintiffs and 24 others under 26 different sale deeds in respect of different plots but not in a single sale deed or in a single transaction and hence the relief in respect of each plot by different purchasers is involved and that each of them should be valued separately and the Court fee should be paid on each relief.
3. The petition was resisted by the revision petitioner and respondent No.8. It is stated in the counter that the entire plaint schedule property is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs (revision petitioner and respondent No.8) and hence they filed the above suit for permanent injunction. It is their case that in view of the relief sought for in the above suit they need not pay the Court-fee on the actual value of the plaint property and that the suit was numbered after the matter was considered exhaustively. It is lastly asserted that the Court-fee paid in the above suit is only based on the notional value but not on the actual value of the suit schedule property and hence the above petition is not maintainable.
4. The learned Junior Civil Judge considered the contentions of both the sides and following a decision of this Court in K.Bhanumathi v. Guntur Municipal Council, , held that the Court-fee paid in the suit is insufficient and hence the plaintiffs are directed to pay the proper Court-fee. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the above order and hence this civil revision petition is filed.
5. Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has made two-fold submissions. It is firstly contended that the issue relating to Court-fee cannot be gone into after the commencement of the trial and in support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of my learned Brother Justice Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, as he then was in O.Bhaskara Rao v. A.Saibabu, . He then contended that the suit is for bare injunction and under Section 26(C) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), Court-fee is payable on the notional value but not on the actual value and he relied on the judgment of my learned Brother Justice V.Rajagopala Reddy in K.Ramamurthy v. Executive Officer, 1996 (2) ALD 75, in support of his contention. Thus, he contended that the impugned order which is admittedly passed after P.W.1 is examined to some extent, cannot be sustained especially in view of the well considered decision cited ( supra).
6. On the other hand, Sri D.Ramalinga Swamy, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the question of Court-fee can be gone into at any stage and the judgment rendered by my learned Brother Justice Siddappa (supra) covers all the aspects of this matter and it is identical to the case on hand and hence the impugned order is sustainable.
7. I carefully considered the rival contentions. The undisputed facts are that an extent of Ac.104.75 cents of land comprising of several plots was purchased by 26 individuals. The revision petitioner is one of them while Respondent No.8 is another. They filed the suit for bare injunction valuing the property notionally at Rs. 2000/- and paying Court-fee thereon under Section 26(C) of the Act. A written statement has been filed by the respondents-defendants and several issues have been framed. Then the trial commenced and the revision petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and he also marked certain sale deeds on his behalf At this stage, the present petition raising the question of Court-fee was filed and after hearing both sides, the impugned order is passed.
8. The first and foremost test to be applied is whether such an order can be passed in the midst of the trial. It is contended by Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao that a judgment has to be rendered on all the issues after the conclusion of the trial and an issue relating to Court-fee cannot be decided while the trial is in progress. This question came up for consideration before my learned Brother Justice Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, as he then was in the judgment cited ( supra) wherein it was held as follows:
"A plain reading of the provision, Section 11(4) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act makes it clear that any question relating to the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Court is required to be heard and decided before the hearing of the suit as contemplated by Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. This takes us to the question as to when the hearing of the suit commenced.
In the instant case, P.W.1 was already examined and he marked documents Ex. A-1 to A-10. Therefore, the trial of the suit had commenced.
The trial Court, therefore, committed an error of law in proceeding to decide the question after the trial has commenced."
It is evident from the above that any question relating to the value be it for the purpose of Court-fee or jurisdiction must be decided only on the conclusion of the hearing, It is no doubt true that the principles laid down by my learned Brother Justice K.B. Siddappa in so far as the power of the Court to enquire into the question whether the plaint or appeal has been properly valued can be exercised at three stages are correct. But, the fact remains that the issue in the above case was at the threshold and hence it was not considered whether the question of Court-fee can be decided one way or the other after the commencement of the trial or not nor the judgment cited 2 supra was brought to his notice. In the case on hand, the question of sufficiency of Court-fee was considered by the Junior Civil Judge and the plaint was registered after due satisfaction that the Court-fee paid was correct. Thus, the enquiry at the first stage was over. Then coming to the next stage, the trial was commenced and P.W.1 was also examined. It is only after conclusion of the trial the issue of Court-fee was once again be gone into. As held by my learned Brother Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, J, it must be done only on conclusion of the trial. The third stage is the appellate stage which has not yet reached in this case. Reverting back to the ratio laid down by my learned Brother Justice Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, I am also of the view that when once the trial commenced, the question of determination of Court-fee in the midst of the trial is not permissible.
9, Sri. Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner secondly contended that the suit is for bare injunction and hence Section 26(C) of the Act provides for payment of Court-fee on the notional value but not on actual value and accordingly, the Court-fee has been paid on notional value of Rs. 2.000/-. In this context it is worthwhile to notice the judgment rendered by my another learned Brother Justice V.Rajagopala Reddy (supra), while dealing with the question whether the value for Court-fee and jurisdiction is one and the same or different, the relevant provision viz., Section 26(C) of the Act has been extracted and it has been noticed in the said judgment that though the suit has been valued at Rs. 67,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction, it has been notionally valued at Rs. 1,000/- for the purpose of Court-fee and a Court-fee of Rs.111/- has been paid. It is therefore held that the relief of perpetual injunction can be notionally valued by the plaintiff and the requisite Court-fee can be paid.
10. I perused carefully Section 26(C) of the Act and I find that there is a discretion vested in the plaintiff to value the relief of perpetual injunction and pay the Court-fee accordingly. It is another thing that the Court also has power to value the relief. But, that provision does not indicate that the value should be actual value or market value. On a consideration of the contentions of both sides and the case law cited supra, I am satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained firstly for the reason that it was passed during the midst of the trial instead of doing so at the conclusion of the trial or in the judgment to be rendered in the suit and secondly the relief of perpetual injunction can be valued notionally by the plaintiff.
11. For the above reasons, the C.R.P. is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Junior Civil Judge is directed to proceed with the trial and after conclusion of the trial hear both sides on all issues including the issue relating to Court-fee and render a judgment on all the issues. There shall be no order as to costs.