VALIA VEETTIL KOMAPPAN Vs. ELAMAKANDY KINNATTUMKARA KARTHIYAYINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arising in this revision is whether the court fee paid on a plaint presented in the wrong court could be given credit to when the plaint is represented in the proper court. The suit was originally filed in the Munsiffs Court of Quilandy. It was found on a preliminary enquiry that the plaint claim was undervalued with a view to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court. The plaint was accordingly returned. From that order the plaintiff appealed to the District Judge and the learned District Judge in dismissing the appeal pointed out that the plaint could be re-presented after deleting the prayer for recovery, thereby bringing it within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff court. From that order a revision was preferred to this court in CRP. 16/64 and in dismissing that petition this court observed:-

(2.) In Bimala Prasad Mukerji v. Lal Moni Devi ( AIR 1926 Cal. 355 ) a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is seen to have taken the same view. There, in the interval between the return of the plaint and its presentation to the proper court, the Court Fee Act was amended. The learned Judges held:-

(3.) The same view was taken by the Madras High Court in a later decision in Sarabhama v. Veeranna ( AIR 1950 Mad. 57 ). There the learned Judge held:-