CHEROOTTY O T Vs. PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions raised in this Revision Petition are: (1) Whether under the provisions of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Court itself has got power to determine the court fee after the closure of evidence or completion of the pleadings; and (2) whether the value shown in the suit is on the basis of the annual income of the property as per Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 7 of the Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the decision in Janakiamma v. Krishnan (1978 KLT 463) the Court can determine the court fee only at seven stages mentioned in that judgment. All these stages are prior to the closing of evidence. Hence after the closure of evidence the Court has no power to determine the court fee. It is further contended that under Sections 12, 13 and 18 of the Act the Court shall not suo motu determine the court fee to be payable by the plaintiff unless it is raised by the other side as a preliminary issue.

(3.) I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Learned Government Pleader submits that as per the provisions of the Act it is the duty of the Court to see that the Court fee shall not be attributed on the reason of non-mentioning by the defendants or non-framing of any preliminary issue in the suit itself. The judgment in We-Build Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamaleswaran (1981 KLT 773) is very relevant in this aspect. In paragraphs 14 and 15 of the above judgment the Division Bench held as follows: