STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Gujarat has preferred this Revision Application against the order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amreli on 3- 10-1992 on Court Fee Reference No. 4 of 1992 in Special Civil Suit No. 95 of 1989.

(2.) Few facts relevant for the purpose of determining the issue in question are as under : 2.1 Opponent No. 1 herein State Bank of Saurashtra filed a Special Civil Suit No. 95 of 1989 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amreli against the opponent No. 2 herein Karshanbhai Manjibhai Dobaria for recovery of Rs. 35,933.00 with interest at the rate of 16% p.a. and cost on 26-9-1989. Opponent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) valued the suit at Rs. 35,933.00 for the purpose of Court Fees. 2.2 In the plaint, in paragraph 3, it is averred that the opponent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) has, for agricultural purpose, submitted an application for cash credit facilities and cash credit facility of Rs. 1,985.00 was sanctioned by the plaintiff on 14-6-1987. Some property was mortgaged against this facility. Amount was to be paid with interest at 12% p.a. within a period of one year. 2.3 Again, on 6-7-1988, defendant, by executing another document creating charge on property, obtained Mid-Term Loan facilities to the tune of Rs. 2,375.00 and Rs. 2,250.00 have been sanctioned at interest of 11% p. a. and the said amount was to be repaid within a period of 3 years. 2.4 Again on 10-7-1981, defendant executed another document for creating charge on property in favour of plaintiff and additional cash credit facility of Rs. 5,000.00 was granted by plaintiff which was required to be repaid with interest at 15% p.a. 2.5 On 15-4-1982, defendant executed further agreement and obtained further cash credit facility of Rs. 6,000.00 from plaintiff. 2.6 On 11-1-1983, defendant executed another agreement and midterm loan of Rs. 5,000.00 have been sanctioned by plaintiff which was repayable with interest at 15% p.a. 2.7 Thus, on different dates, plaintiff granted three different facilities, known as : Cash Credit, Mid-term and Term loan. For these three facilities, defendant executed different agreements for different properties in favour of plaintiff, i.e.. Survey No. 65/1 admeasuring 1 Acre 26 Gunthas, Survey No. 65/2 admeasuring 5 Acres and 22 Gunthas, Survey No. 155 admeasuring 2 Acres and 32 Gunthas, Survey No. 156 admeasuring 1 Acre and 32 Gunthas situated at village Barpatoli and Survey No. 1 admeasuring 16 Acres situated at village Sarvda. Thus it is clear that on different dates, for obtaining different facilities of different nature at different rate of interest, charge has been created over different properties. 2.8 In para 11 of the plaint, it has been specifically mentioned that Rs. 15,280/- is outstanding in the account of the defendant in Cash Credit Account with interest till 30-9-1989; Rs. 7,316.00 is outstanding in the account of the defendant in the Mid-term Loan Account till 30-9- 1989 and Rs. 13,499.00 is outstanding in the Term Loan Account with interest till 30-9-1989.

(3.) Inspecting Officer, Court Fees, Bhavnagar, submitted a report under Sec. 12(3) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 pointing out that in all, the Court Fees payable is Rs. 2,660.00. as shown in the Table below : Transaction of Accounts/ Total Amount Court Fees loan payable 1. C. C. A. 15,218/- 1,135/- 2. M. T. A. 7,216/- 530/- 3. A. T. L. 13,499/- 995/- Total Court Fees 2,660/- Less Court Fees paid 2,080/- Deficit Court Fees 580/- Learned Judge rejected the reference by order dated 3-10-1992.