VATTIKOTI KANTAMMA Vs. T SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), GANGAVATHI PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF FILED A SUIT SEEKING DECLARATION OF TITLE IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN SY. NO. 192, MEASURING 20 ACRES 29 GUNTAS SITUATED AT HANAWAL VILLAGE WITH A CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS. THE SUIT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF JURISDICTION VALUED AT RS. 10 LAKHS AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COURTS FEE VALUED AT RS. 1,000/-.

(2.) THE TRIAL COURT TAKES THE VIEW THAT THE DIFFERENT VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COURT FEE AND JURISDICTION IS IMPERMISSIBLE AND THE COURT FEE IS TO BE PAID ON THE BASIS OF THE PECUNIARY JURISDICTIONAL VALUES STATED IN THE PLAINT. ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED THE PAYMENT OF DEFICIT COURT FEE ON OR BEFORE 17-9-2003 AND ALSO DIRECTED THAT IF COURT FEE IS NOT PAID, THE PLAINT IS TO BE RETURNED TO THE PLAINTIFF.

(3.) I FIND THE ORDER IS FAULTY FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON. THE NON-PAYMENT OF DEFICIT COURT FEE WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER ORDER 7, RULE 11 OF THE CPC, WOULD ENTAIL REJECTION OF PLAINT. THE ORDER OF RETURN IS IMPROPER.