KHEM CHAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Revisional Court dated 19.08.2010 whereunder the revision filed by the defendant to the suit against the order of the Trial Court deciding issues no. 4 and 5 has been partly allowed. Under the impugned order, the Revisional Court has maintained the order in so far as valuation of the suit property has been determined by the Trial Court under issue no. 4. In respect of issue no. 5, it has been held that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff was not sufficient and the plaintiff has been directed to pay the Court fee in accordance with Section 7 (IV-A) of the Court Fees Act on the valuation of the property subject matter of the suit, ad valorem.

(2.) THE order is being challenged on the ground that in the revision the prayer made was that the matter be remanded to the Trial Court to decide the issues afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Therefore, the Revisional Court could not have determined as to whether Court fee is to be paid in accordance with Section 7 (IV-A) as amended in the State of U.P. or not. Secondly it is contended that in the facts of the case, since declaration qua a sale deed being void was prayed, the Court fee to be paid has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 Schedule 2 of the Court Fee Act. For the purposes reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Ramkrishan Burman reported in1971 AIR (SC), 87 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shefali Roy vs. Hero Jaswant Das reported in 1992 AIR Alld., 254.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, the Court below appears to be justified in asking the petitioner to pay the Court fee ad valorem on the valuation of the property covered by the sale deed, declaration whereof was prayed along with a consequential injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in possession.