THIMMA REDDY Vs. K A KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit brought by the first respondent against the petitioner and respondent No.13 for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,000 a decree has been passed against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. In the said suit, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent took up a plea that they being debtors within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt llelief Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the debt in question stood discharged. On the basis of the plea raised by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the trial Court raised! Issue No. 3 as to whether the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are debtors as defined under the Act. The trial Court recorded a finding that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are rot debtors within the meaning of the Act Accordingly the trial Court has decreed the suit. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have filed a RA No, 51/59 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Madhugiri, against the aforesaid decree passed by the trial Court. The appeal has been valued by them at less than Rs. 5,000 under Sec- 47 read with Sec, 49 of the Karnataka Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court Fees Act'), on the ground that the appellants are aggrieved by the finding recorded by the trial Court on Issue No.3 only and have paid the court fees of Rs. 20 only on the memorandum of appeal.

(2.) The lower Appellate Court has directed the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to pay the deficient Court fee so as to make up the Court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal as was paid on the plaint in the trial Court and has further ordered the appellants to file a fresh valuation slip as per S. 49 of the Act. It is this order that has been challenged in this civil revision petition.

(3.) 3ri L. Subramanya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are not disputing the claim of the plantiff-1st respondent and the subject matter of the appeal is confined to the correctness of the finding recorded on issue No. 3 as to whether the petitioner and the second respondent are debtors within the meaning of the Act; therefore, they are entitled to value the appeal quite apart from the valuation wade in the suit and as such, the order passed by the Court below directing them to pay the deficit court fee is not in accordance with the provisions contained under Sec. 49 read with Expl- (1) and (4) of the Act. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted.