H K HANEEF KHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 6542/1980 on 1-4-1985. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The Plaintiff/Appellant had filed a suit against the Defendant/Respondent for a declaration that the plaintiff is not in arrears of tax and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demanding and recovery of alleged arrears of tax from the plaintiff and grant costs of the suit etc.

(2.) The court fee examiner has pointed out that the plaintiff sought the relief of declaration that he is not in arrears of tax and asked for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the arrears of Rs. 1,47,404-97. The plaintiff paid the court fee of Rs. 125/- on the subject matter of the suit. But, the examiner had examined and issued a check slip that the plaintiff shall pay the court fee on Rs. 1,47,404-97 viz., Rs. 14,741-00 and also for relief of injunction. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Bhavani Shankar Rao, vehemently urged that he has to pay court fee of Rs. 250/- as per the Provisions of Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. He has to pay court fee for the relief of injunction. Therefore, the examiner has committed an error in pointing out that the plaintiff would have to pay the amount in question. Here, it is necessary to state some facts. That the 3rd respondent instituted the recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the recovery of arrears of sales tax found due, that is, Rs. 1,08,148-49. The 3rd defendant instituted recovery proceedings against the plaintiff and attached his moveables on 19-11-1975. The value of the moveables attached by the court, exceeds Rs. 50,000/-. Then the 3rd defendant also directed the debtors of the plaintiff to pay their amount due to the plaintiff, to defendant-3 directly, towards the amount of Rs. 1,47,404-97 due from plaintiff. This was the recovery proceedings. Thereafter, respondent-3 did not keep quiet, but again and again, went on harassing the plaintiff for the payment of the tax due. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was not due any arrears in respect of tax and also issue permanent injunction restraining respondent-3 from demanding and recovery of alleged tax from the plaintiff, grant costs etc. It is quite clear that the prayer sought was in respect of the arrears due to respondent-3 by plaintiff. Sub-section fd) of Section 24 of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, reads as under:

(3.) Here, in the Section, the Court fee is to be paid on Rs. 250/-, Wherefore, there is some force in the contention advanced by Sri Bhavani Shankar Rao, the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The Civil Revision Petition is liable to be allowed. In the result. Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 1-4-1985 in O.S. No. 6542/1980 passed by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City on check slip is set aside. No costs. In view of the above order, plaintiff has to pay the court fee according to Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, prior to amendment. Sri A.J. Gunjal, High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks. Revision Petition is Allowed.