BHAGEERATHI Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is by the defendant. I have no hesitation to dismiss this revision petition. The revision petitioner challenges an order of the Trial Court, wherein the Trial Court has held that the plaintiff has paid proper court fee on the plaint.

(2.) The Court Fees Act is enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party to obstruct the trial of an action. The provision of the Court Fees Act can never be allowed as a weapon of defence in an action. By accepting that the defendant is entitled to contest the valuation of the properties in dispute as if it were a matter in issue between him and the plaintiff and by entertaining revision petitions filed by the defendant against the order adjudging court fee payable on the plaint, all progress in the suit for trial of the dispute on the merits may be effectively frustrated in certain cases. This is a suit of the year 1976. The progress of the suit has been effectively arrested for nearly 8 years. I fail to appreciate what real grievance the defendant can make out by seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this court on the question whether or not the plaintiffs have paid adequate court fee on their plaint. I have no doubt that the question whether proper court fee has been paid on a plaint is essentially and primarily a question between the plaintiffs and the State. How by an order of the court adjudging the adequacy of court fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may feel aggrieved, it is difficult for me to appreciate. I am bound to remember distinctly and clearly when I deal with the revision petitions challenging the correctness of the order determining the question of court fee, that the jurisdiction in revision exercised by this court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is absolutely conditioned by clauses (a) to (c) thereof, that it can be invoked on the ground of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Subordinate Court or assumption of jurisdiction which it does not possess or on the ground that the court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The defendant may have entertained an honest belief that proper court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff. But this will not give him an entitlement to move this court in revision against the order adjudging payment of court fee payable on the plaint. Sub-section (2) of S.12 of the Court Fees Act runs thus:-

(3.) The counsel for 'he revision petitioner submitted that S.19 of the Court Fees Act provides that for the purpose of deciding whether the subject matter of the suit has been properly valued or whether the fees paid is sufficient, the court may hold such enquiry as it considers proper and issue a commission for local inspection or other investigation as may be necessary. These provisions would certainly show the concern of the Legislature to collect Court Fees due from the litigant. But these provisions do not arm the defendants with a weapon of technicality to obstruct the progress of the suit by approaching this Court in revision against an order determining the court fees payable. I see no merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.