Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 535 (MP)

Haricharan v. M. Ojha

2000-05-12

DIPAK MISRA

body2000
ORDER Misra, J. -- 1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the defendants/petitioners have called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 28.10,98 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 22-A/95. 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass The non-applicant No. 1 as plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract. It is averred in the plaint that an agreement for sale was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants on 11.11.94 in respect of the land situate at Khasra No. 757 in village Juna Bilaspur Patwari Circle No. 22. R.I. Circle, Bilaspur. As per the agreement the area of such Khasra has been given 7.830 sq. ft. and the rate per sq. ft. is fixed at Rs. 65/-. The applicant filed the written statement. After the written statement was filed certain issues were framed and Issue No. 3 related to valuation of the suit land. Initially, the plaintiff had valued the suit at Rs. 3,08,748/- and paid the court-fees thereon. As stated in the petition thereafter the plaintiff got the area demarcated and came to know that it was 6.426 sq. ft. and computed the value and filed an application for amendment for enhancement of the valuation of the suit land and paid the court-fee of Rs. 4,17,990/- 3. While the issue No.3 was taken up it was contended by the defendants that as per agreement for sale the area is 7,830 sq. ft. and therefore the plaintiff was under obligation to pay the court-fee on the valuation of the entire area and could not value it as he liked. The demarcation which was done by the plaintiff was also disputed. 4. The learned trial Judge accepted the valuation of the plaintiff and answered the Issue No.3 in favour of the plaintiff. The said order is the cause of grievance of the present petitioners. 5. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1/plaintiff. It is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel that the plaintiff was obligated to pay the court-fee on the entire land and he could not have unilaterally changed the area. Resisting the aforesaid submission Mr. 5. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1/plaintiff. It is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel that the plaintiff was obligated to pay the court-fee on the entire land and he could not have unilaterally changed the area. Resisting the aforesaid submission Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel, has contended that the valuation was in the domain of the plaintiff and as he had fixed the area after due demarcation he has paid the court-fees thereon and such an action of the plaintiff could not be found fault with Mr. Sanjay Agrawal has also submitted that when the question of deficit court fee is involved in the case the High Court has no power under section 115 of the CPC to interfere. To substantiate the aforesaid submission he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Sri Rathnavaramaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299 and Lavkush Vastrakar and another v. Rameshwar Prasad Sahu, 1996 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 194. 6. It is well established in law that the question of payment of court-fees has to be decided on the allegations made in the plaint. The Apex Court, in the case of Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 held as under:- "The question of court-fees must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on the merits." From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is graphically clear that the averments in the plaint are to be taken note of and not that of the written statement. It is absolutely clear that it is the valuation as put forth by the plaintiff would be the valuation of the suit in the matter like this and the averments in the written statement arc of no consequence. In the present case the plaintiff has valued the suit and computed the area at 6,426 sq. ft. and paid the court-fees thereon. In the present case the plaintiff has valued the suit and computed the area at 6,426 sq. ft. and paid the court-fees thereon. In this context I may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Rachappa Subrao Jadhav Desai v. Shidappa Venkatroo Jadhav Desai, AIR 1918 PC 188 wherein it has been held as under:- "The court-fees Act was passed not to arm a litigant with a weapon to technicality against his opponent but to secure revenue for the benefit of the State. It is not competent to a defendant in a suit to utilise the provisions of the Act at the appellate stage not to safeguard the interests of the State but to obstruct the plaintiff i.e. he cannot contend that the Court wrongly decided to the detriment of the revenue but that it dealt with the case without jurisdiction." The learned counsel has not been able to point out any jurisdictional error or any material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. What is being argued is the factual basis as put forth by the defendants. In this context I may usefully refer to the decision rendered in the case of Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299 wherein the Apex Court expressed as under: - "Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. The jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by cls. (a) to (c) thereof. The defendant who may believe and even honestly that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior Courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint." As I have already opined the case at hand relates to payment of deficit Court fee but does not indicate any kind of jurisdictional error the ratio laid down in the case of Sri Rathnavarmaraja (supra) would apply in full force. 7. Judged from both the angles I am of the considered view that the civil revision is sans merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.