RAMAKRISHNA SETTY Vs. PROPERTY MANAGER CSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At a very late stage in the suit the Learned Principal Munsiff, Tumkur, has made an order appointing the Sub-Registrar having jurisdiction over the suit schedule property Commissioner to value the same as of the year 1980, the year in which the suit was filed. He has also directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur, be made a party and copies of the plaint etc., may be furnished to him. He has purportedly exercised that power under Section 19 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come to this Court under Section 115 of the C.P.C. inter alia contending that the question of Court fee and market value of the suit properties was specifically in issues Nos. 6 and 7 and parties had led evidence and therefore there was no need for enquiry under Section 19 of the Act.

(2.) I do not think the Learned Counsel's contention can be accepted by this Court. By enacting Section 19 of the Act. the Legislature has clothed the Court with wide powers to enquire regarding Court fee and market value of properties. In the procedure laid down in that Section, it is the Court's satisfaction and not the satisfaction of the parties which is of importance. The Court fee is a matter of public revenue ; where public revenue is likely to be affected, the Court has been given wide powers to prevent it. In the instant case, a perusal of the order indicates that the parties have not led sufficient evidence in regard to market value and therefore the need has arisen to follow the procedure and exercise the power available to the Court under Section 19 of the Act. I therefore do not see any improper exercise of jurisdiction. Perhaps if there was cogent evidence in regard to market value, the Court may have been satisfied with that evidence. I have nothing before me to conclude that such evidence has been led by parties which would normally satisfy the Court. In the result, this Revision Petition is misconceived and it is rejected.

(3.) I must, however, direct the Learned Munsiff to complete the collection of material from the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner within three months from the date of receipt of this order.