STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SATTARBHAI MUSABHAI MEMOAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat has felt aggrieved by the order dated 31/08/1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Rajpipla in Regular Civil Suit No. 110/86 rejecting the report of the Court Fees Inspector. The Court Fees Inspector as per his report dated November 2 1987 prayed that in the suit the amount of court fees was required to be paid on ad valorem basis inasmuch as the suit in essence was for specific performance of contract. On this basis it was requested that the plaintiff be directed to pay court fees on the basis of the value of the subject-matter of the suit.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 i.e. Sattarbhai Musabhai Memon filed suit against respondent No.2 i.e. Umiya Timber and Furniture Mart on 13/09/1988 In the suit the plaintiff prayed that the defendant be restrained from moving sized timber wood and be restrained from obtaining permission from Range Forest Officer and be also restrained from obstructing the plaintiff from moving the timber wood in question. It was the case of respondent No.1-original plaintiff that respondent No. 2-defendant had entered into contract with him for sale of timber wood at the rate of Rs. 140.00 per cubic foot for 600 cubic feet timber wood. The timber wood was agreed to be supplied by defendant after sizing the same. As per the contract the defendant was required to give delivery of the said goods to one M. K. & Company of Rajpipla. An amount of Rs. 23 0 (Rupees twenty-three thousand) was paid towards consideration of the goods to be supplied by the defendant. After receiving the aforesaid amount the defendant entered into contract of sale with some other person and attempted to deliver goods to other persons in breach of the contract entered into with the plaintiff. On these allegations the plaintiff filed the suit and prayed for the relief as stated above.

(3.) The Inspector of Court Fees attached to the Court inspected the plaint as provided under Section 12 of the Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 He made report to the Court to the effect that the court fees of Rs. 30.00 paid on the basis that the suit was for injunction was not proper. In a detailed report submitted by him it was pointed out that the subject-matter of the suit was capable of monetary evaluation; that the subject-matter of the suit was 600 cubic feet of timber wood; its price was Rs. 140.00 per cubic foot; that on this basis as disclosed in the plaint 65 cubic feet timber wood was already supplied; the price of balance 535 cubic feet timber wood would come to Rs. 74 900 (Rupees seventy-four thousand nine hundred). On this basis it was submitted by him that an amount of Rs. 2870 (Rupees two thousand eight hundred and seventy) was required to be recovered as and by way of court fees. The Trial Court rejected the reference on the ground that the relief prayed for in the suit was for injunction and that it was falling within the provisions of Section 6(iv)(j) of the Court Fees Act and therefore the Court fees paid was proper. The State Government of Gujarat has filed this Revision Application challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid order. Relevant part of the provision of Section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act 1957 reads as follows: