SAKINABI Vs. ZEENATHUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application under Section 115, CPC arises from the judgment and order dated 24-1-1994 passed in suit No. 1958/1989. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration for ex parte decree dated 12-9-1995 passed in HRC No. 406/96 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, is not binding and executable against the petitioner in respect of either premises No. 298/3 or 298/1, Albert Victor Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore and for injunction restraining the defendants-respondent and their agents and servants permanently from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs and for restoration of possession and for mandatory injunction against the respondent No. 2 directing them to restore back the possession of the property which they have unlawfully taken. The plaintiffs had valued the reliefs claimed in the suit under S. 24 (d) and 24 (c) of the Court-fees Act. The defendants filed objections challenging the valuation given by the plaintiffs and amount of court-fee paid and asserted that this valuation is incorrect and court-fee paid was deficient. The Court observed that the for (sic) possession of the property and there is separate provision for valuing the immovable property for possession. The Court observed that the method adopted by the plaintiffs on the basis of which valuation of suit has been done and court-fee has been paid as per valuation slip was against the mandatory provisions of Court-fees Act and as the evidence is not yet commenced and the plaintiff was directed to again revalue the suit and the relief claimed therein and file correct court-fee in accordance with law by separate valuation slip.

(2.) ). The learned Counsel for the revisionists-applicants submitted that this order does not throw light on what is the correct valuation and what court-fee should have been there? Learned counsel contended while passing the order the learned Court below did not apply its mind to the relevant provisions of Court-Fees Act. Learned counsel submitted that order being vague and unclear as well and disputes have not been decided, the order appears to suffer from jurisdictional error as per clause (c) of S. 115.

(3.) THESE contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionists-applicants have been hotly challenged by Sri C. N. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents. Sri Seshagiri Rao contended that it is the duty of the plaintiff to have filed the correct valuation and correct court-fee, but the plaintiff has not done so. So the court below has not committed any jurisdictional error.