JOSEPH Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY the plaintiff has brought the suit for an injunction, and he has also stated that for purposes of injunction, as is necessary under S. 27 [c] of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, he has fixed the value at Rs. 150/-and it is on that basis that he has paid the court fee on the plaint.

(2.) THE suit has been admittedly instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge, and there is no controversy that the plaintiff has given the valuation in the plaint for purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 5,500,'-Objection was taken regarding the sufficiency of the court fee paid; and the learned Subordinate Judge, by the order under attack, is of the view that the value given by the plaintiff in the plaint for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 5,500/-, must be considered under S. 53 of the Act to be the value for purposes of court fee also; and accordingly the plaintiff has been directed to pay additional court fee on the sum of Rs. 5,500/ -.

(3.) MR. Gopalakrishnan Potti, learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt referred me to the provisions contained in S. 53 (2) of the act. In my view, S. 53 (2) has no application to the facts of this case, because it deals with suits where fee is payable under the Act at fixed rate. Instances where the court fee is payable at a fixed rate, notwithstanding the value to be given for purposes of jurisdiction, are to be seen in S. 26, 46, 47, etc. , of the Act. I do not think there is any scope for applying the provisions of S. 53 (2) to the case on hand.