INDERLAL PANWARMAL Vs. KHIALDAS SHEWARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interesting point which arises in this Civil Revision Application is in connection with the appropriate provision under the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 which is to be applied to the plaint in the instant case. The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff and he has filed a suit being suit No. 1448 of 1965 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The plaintiff has asked for a declaration that the writing passed by the plaintiff on September 9 1965 in favour of defendant No. 1 is illegal ultra vires null and void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff and that the same is in operative and ineffective. He has also prayed for the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using in any manner or operating upon the said writing dated September 9 1965 against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit and paid Rs. 30.00as Court fee on the plaint. After the suit was filed the question was raised by the office of the City Civil Court as to what was the appropriate Court fee. The learned Registrar of the City Civil Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff must pay Court fees valuing the subject-matter of the suit at Rs. 17 600 and therefore must pay the deficit Court fee of Rs. 1280.00. Against this order of the learned Registrar dated November 5 1965 there was a Revision Application and the learned Judge in the City Civil Court came to the conclusion that Article 7 of the First Schedule to the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 applied and that the order passed by the learned Registrar should be confirmed and the Revision Application should be dismissed. The present Civil Revision Application has been filed by the plaintiff against this order dismissing his revision application.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner and of the learned Assistant Government Pleader who appears on behalf of the State before me it is necessary to summarise the contentions of the plaintiff in his plaint filed in the City Civil Court. The plaintiff has alleged that he was originally a native of Sakkar in Sind now situated in East-Pakistan and that he is a member of the Sakkar Panchayat formed in Ahmedabad and defendant No. 2 is the President of Sakkar Panchayat. The plaintiffs brother Lachhmandas is carrying on cloth business in Shop No. 4A Sindhi Market Revdi Bazaar Ahmedabad; and the plaintiff is carrying his own cloth business in Shop No. 59A Sindhi Market Revdi Bazaar Ahmedabad. According to the plaintiff the plaintiffs brother Lachhmandas came into financial difficulties and could not pay his creditors in time and creditors approached Sakkar Panchayat. Defendants Nos. 2 3 and 4 are the office bearers of the Sakkar Panchayat defendant No. 2 being the President defendant No. 3 being the Treasurer and defendant No. 4 being a leading member of the Panchayat Defendants Nos. 2 3 and 4 approached Lachhmandas the brother of the plaintiff and at their suggestion in accordance with the custom of the Sindhi Community and trade management of the shop of Lachhmandas was handed over to defendants Nos. 2 to 4 on September 9 1965 and the arrangement was that Lachhmandas appointed defendants Nos. 2 3 and 4 to manage the business and to pay the creditors from the profits of that business. After defendants Nos. 2 3 and 4 went through the account books of the plaintiffs brother they found that it was not possible for them to pay all the creditors because according to the account books the business was running at a loss and therefore the plaintiff avers in his plaint defendants Nos. 2 3 and 4 insisted that the plaintiff should also hand over management of his shop No. 59A to defendants Nos. 2 3 and 4 and the plaintiffs business be also amalgamated with that of his brother so that all the creditors of Lachhmandas might be paid. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the first instance the plaintiffs brother Lachhmandas did not agree to the said proposal but he was threatened that in case he did not agree to the proposal he would be put in jail and hence under those threats Lachhmandas urged upon the plaintiff to agree to whatever proposal defendants Nos. 2 to 4 might suggest in order to save Lachhmandas from jail as threatened by those defendants. According to the plaintiff he also did not agree to the proposal of Lachhmandas in the first instance but according to him he was also threatened by the defendants and he was told that in case he did not agree he would also be put into jail because they told him that they were rich people and that they were influential people and as such the plaintiff should agree to the proposal of the defendants. The plaintiff according to him was a young man of 25 years of age and did not know anything about the threats held out by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and because of the pressure and threats brought upon him he passed a writing in favour of defendant No. 1 mentioning in the said writing that he agreed to sell shop No. 59A including all the goods in that shop to defendant No. I for the sum of Rs. 17 600 and also to the effect that he had received that amount in cash on the day on which the writing was passed. It is thus the contention of the plaintiff that this writing was taken on September 9 1965 at about 6 P.M. at the shop of defendant No. 3 where the plaintiff had been called and thus the plaintiff was forced to pass the writing under the threats of being sent to jail. On the following day i.e. on September 10 1965 the plaintiff consulted his lawyer and sent a telegram stating therein that the writing had been taken fraudulently from him and under coercion and that the same was not binding on the plaintiff and apparently this telegram was sent under the signature of the plaintiffs lawyer. It is under these circumstances that the plaintiff has filed his suit praying for a declaration that the writing passed by him in favour of defendant No. 1 on September 9 1964 is illegal ultra vires null and void and not binding on him and that the same is inoperative and ineffective and also for the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

(3.) It is in the light of these averments made in the plaint and the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff that I have to consider as to what is the appropriate provision of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) applicable to the instant case.