M NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) whether an appeal against an Order under Rule e 4 of Order 47, Civil Procedure Code granting an application for review can be maintained even after the disposal of the original suit in which that Order was passed.

(2.) in a suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants a question regarding the valuation of the suit for purposes of court fee and about the sufficiency of the court fee paid by the plaintiffs had arisen for consideration. The plaintiffs amended the prayer column and the lower court passed an Order on 31-7-1995 to the effect that the valuation was proper and the court fee paid was sufficient. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant filed an application for review of that Order under Order 47, Rule 1 read with sections 114 and 151, Civil Procedure Code. The court allowed that application on 30-9-1995 and reviewing the earlier Order passed by it called upon the plaintiffs to furnish the correct market value of the suit property and to pay the court fee afresh after adducing additional evidence, if any. Against that Order the appellants initially filed civil revision petition No. 3563 of 1995 in this court. As there was objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition the plaintiffs withdrew that revision petition and filed this appeal on 6-3-1996. In the meanwhile on 19-12-1995 the lower court after noting that the plaintiffs had not brought any stay Order from the High Court and had not paid the deficit court fee rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) it is now contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that as the plaint has already been rejected, this appeal cannot be maintained and that it is open to the appellants to question the validity of the impugned Order in a regular appeal against the Order of rejection of the plaint by virtue of Section 105, Civil Procedure Code. He relied on a decision in Anandrao Baliram and others v. Parvatibai, in support of his contention that even in the regular appeal against the Order of rejection, the appellants could question the validity of the Order now impugned in this appeal.