SUSHIL SURI Vs. HARISH SURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Pritish Kumar assisted by Mr. Shantanu Gupta Advocate learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. S.K. Kalia Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Akber Ahmad learned counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Abhinav Bhattacharya learned counsel for opposite parties 3 and 4. Learned counsel for party admit that the opposite party no.2 is in relation to the opposite parties no.3 and 4, who are already represented and notices may be dispensed with. In view of aforesaid, notices to opposite party no.2 stand dispensed with and case is being adjudicated at admission stage with consent of learned counsel for parties since no questions of fact are involved.

(2.) Civil Revision under Sec. 115 of the Code Civil Procedure has been filed against order dtd. 3/12/2022 passed in regular suit No. 342 of 2015 whereby preliminary issue No.3 regarding valuation of suit and court fees paid thereon has been decided against revisionist-plaintiff. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that revisionist had filed suit for partition of properties indicated in the plaint which included one residential plot, one commercial plot and a building. It is submitted that the suit was valued at Rs.2,72,12,403.00 and court fees thereon was paid at 20 times the annual rental value in terms of Sec. 7(v)(I)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 with regard to the two plots and similarly court fees was paid as per nagar palika rental in terms of Sec. 7(v)(II). It is submitted that aforesaid method of determining market value of the properties is one of the modes of determination thereof which has been an accepted principle in various pronouncements as per U.P. Amendment to Court Fees Act, 1870.

(3.) It is submitted that however the trial court by means of impugned order while holding court fees to be payable in terms of Sec. 7(v)(I)(c) and Sec. 7(v)(II) has found the courts fees to be deficient on the ground that the revisionist-plaintiff was required to pay courts fees on the market value of the properties. It is further submitted that while indicating court fees to be paid in terms of aforesaid provisions, the impugned order does not indicate as to how the term market value has been determined by the trial court and even the short fall of court fees has not been indicated in the order leaving it to the wisdom of the revisionist-plaintiff to make good the deficiency. As such it is submitted that not only is the order impugned against provisions of Sec. 7 of the Act but also against settled law thereupon and is also vague.