ARAVINDAKSHAN K Vs. BALAKRISHNA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) I heard the counsel on both sides. Inviting my attention to Ext.P6 order impugned in the Writ Petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order is clearly illegal as the amended application itself had been dismissed without conducting an enquiry as to the correct valuation of the property. If the valuation stated by the plaintiff was found unacceptable for any reason whatsoever, according to the learned Counsel, the court should have conducted an enquiry as to what exactly the valuation of the property to determine the court fee payable. Without doing so, it is submitted, holding that the valuation stated is incorrect, the amendment application itself was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge, which is a procedure not sanctioned by law. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that no interference with Ext.P6 order is warranted as the valuation was not corrected by the plaintiff even after an opportunity was extended by the court. In respect of the very same subject matter, the defendant had filed another suit as O.S. No. 1085/07 for a decree for specific performance and the agreement for sale therein was over Rs. 33 lakhs which reflected the correct market value of the property at the time of institution of the suit, according to the learned Counsel. Plaintiff should have valued the property in accordance with the market value and his failure to do so even after providing an opportunity entailed the dismissal of the amendment application by the court below under Ext.P6 order and it is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction by this Court, is the submission of the learned Counsel for the defendant.

(3.) The various stages at which the question of sufficiency of court fee, as to whether proper fee has been paid, can be considered are covered by Sections 12, 13 and 18 of the Court Fees Act. When a suit is instituted in any court other than the High Court before ordering the plaint to be registered, the first stage of examination of sufficiency of court fee arises for consideration. A decision as to whether proper fee has been made on the plaint has to be arrived by the court on the allegations contained in the plaint and also on the materials covered by the statement, if any, filed under Section 10 of the Court Fees Act. The decision so formed by the court is subject to review and correction later as indicated in succeeding Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 12 of the Court Fees Act. The second stage of enquiry emerges for consideration if a contention is taken as to the insufficiency of court fee by any of the defendants in his written statement before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the suit claim. If such a plea of insufficiency of court fee is raised, it has to be heard and disposed before evidence is recorded. In case, a decision is arrived in the suit that proper court fee has not been paid, plaintiff shall be given an opportunity to amend the suit in accordance with the court's decision to pay the deficit court fee within the time fixed. In the event of noncompliance of the order within the time given it will lead to rejection of the plaint and such other order as to cost as the court deem fit and proper. The third stage arises if any one is added as a defendant after framing of issues provided such impleadment is not as a successor or representative of interest of a party already on record and who had the opportunity to raise the question earlier. Such a person impleaded as an additional defendant may with the permission of the court raise a plea that proper court fee has not been paid or that the fee paid has not been sufficient. Here also the court has to follow the procedure indicated earlier and determine the sufficiency of the court fee paid before recording the evidence of such additional defendant on the merits of the claim. The above three stages are covered by various sub-sections under Section 12 of the Court Fees Act. The 4th stage arises when a party becomes liable to pay additional fee by raising of an issue framed in the suit. That is also to be resolved following the procedure indicated earlier as covered under Section 12 of the Court Fees Act. The 5th stage emerges in a situation where a further enquiry on the sufficiency of the court fee by the court is necessitated on receipt of the report of the Court Fee Examiner deputed by the High Court under Section 18(1) of the Court Fees Act. When such a report is received from the Court Fee Examiner, after inspecting the records of the suit to examine the correctness of the report made and orders passed with respect to the sufficiency of the court fee, the court can review an earlier decision given by the court on the same question and the decision then formed by the court under Section 18(2) of the Court Fees Act would be final so far as that court is concerned. The determination of the sufficiency of the court fee and the decision as to the proper court fee paid on the suit claim by the court at whatever stage it had been arrived at, is subject to further scrutiny whenever the case comes up before a court of appeal. Correctness of any order passed by the lower court on the sufficiency of the court fee paid on the plaint or any other proceeding can be examined by the court of appeal either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties when the case comes up for its consideration. Such a situation is covered by Section 12(4) of the Court Fees Act.