SHANKARANARAYANA KADAMBALITHAYA Vs. VASUDEVA ACHUTA HEBBARA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is unfortunate that the respondents are not represented. All the same, I do not think it necessary in the circumstances to issue notice to the Government Pleader, though the question for decision is the adequacy of the court -fee originally paid on the plaint.

(2.) IT is not even necessary to canvass the correctness of the decision of the learned District Munsiff on the adequacy of the court -fee paid on the plaint. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner was that, whether the court -fee originally paid was sufficient or not, the learned Munsiff had no jurisdiction to -demand any additional court -fee at the stage at which he passed that order. After objections had been taken to the court -fee paid the matter was placed before the learned District Munsiff, and he directed that the question should be heard in open Court and decided. " Call on Bench 26th February, 1946" was the order he passed. Apparently he heard the plaintiff's vakil and adjourned it from 28th February, 1946 to 4th March, 1946, for consideration of the authorities; the authorities must have been cited on the 4th March, 1946. The learned District Munsiff then passed the order:

(3.) SUCH an observation in my opinion cannot possibly be applied to the order, dated 4th March, 1946. There was certainly no reservation apparent on the face of the order. Whether there was a mental reservation on the part of the learned District Munsiff, it is not possible to decide, nor would it be useful to embark upon such an investigation. The mere fact that subsequent to the filing of the written. statement an issue was framed by the same officer w6uld not show that on 4th March, 1946, the learned Munsiff reserved, mentally or otherwise, that the question of court -fee would have to be gone into afresh. As pointed out by Venkatasubba Rao, J., it should be for the Court to decide the question of adequacy of court -fee at the earliest possible stage. The defendant's interest is not so much in the quantum of the court -fee paid, though his help might certainly be valuable to the Court in deciding the issue where the issue is left open for decision. To reiterate, in this case by the order, dated 4th March, 1946, that question was concluded by the District Munsiff, and he did not intend to leave it open for decision afresh in his own Court.