SATYA DEVI Vs. JANAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY means of this revision, the revisionists have preferred revision against order dated 21.10.2010, whereby issue No. 9 regarding valuation has been decided and revisionists were directed to pay the ad valorem court fee on the entire valuation of the suit.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this revision are that a civil suit no. 324 of 2002, Smt. Satya Devi and others Vs. Smt. Janak and others, was instituted by the revisionists for cancellation of lease deed, which was valued at Rs. 25,000/ -. The trial court after obtaining report from Amin Commissioner, assessed the valuation at Rs. 25,11,215/ -. Accordingly issue No. 2 was decided by the trial court vide order dated 16.03.2005. Said finding was assailed before this Court by revisionists/plaintiff, by filing writ petition No. 722 of 2006 (M/S), which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2007. By said order, this Court opined that since the order passed by the trial court is appellable under Section 6A of Court Fees Act, 1870, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. It appears that one of the revisionist - Smt. Snehlata, preferred appeal before appellate court in the year 2009 along with delay condonation application. By the order dated 22.08.2009, appellate court found that the delay in moving before the wrong forum under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, was condonable, but the appellate court did not find sufficient explanation for not filing appeal since 29.08.2007 till 09.01.2009, as such, delay condonation application was rejected. Thereafter, the writ petition No. 1728 of 2009, was find before this Court to assail the order of appellate court dated 22.08.2009, passed in civil misc. appeal No. 08 of 2009, which was decided by this Court on 13.10.2009. Smt. Snehlata Devi Vs. Smt. Janak and others. After hearing both the parties, this Court affirmed the order of the appellate court and observed in its order that as far as liability to pay court fees at 1/5 of the valuation of the subject matter is concerned, as provided under Clause (2) of sub -clause (iv -A) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiffs are at liberty to make the payment in accordance with law as the order passed by the trial court simply relates to the valuation of the property and it doesnt say that the plaintiffs have to pay full court fee on the entire valuation of the subject matter. It further observed that the plaintiff has pleaded that she was not a party to the instrument (lease deed), which was sought to be cancelled.