LAKHIRAM RAMDAS Vs. VIDYUT CABLE AND RUBBER INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) His Lordship after setting out the facts, proceeded. The question that was mooted before Mr. Justice Chitale was whether the learned Judge was right in directing the plaintiff to deposit the court -fees in accordance with his decision. As the point was thought to be of some importance, it has been referred to a Bench.

(2.) MR . Motwani argues that once the Court holds that it has no jurisdiction to try a suit, it cannot make any subsequent order in connection with the suit. Mr. Motwani is right only to an extent but not wholly. In cases where a Court without going into the merits holds that it has no jurisdiction to hear the suit, certainly its function ends and it cannot subsequently make any directions with regard to the suit and for this proposition, in our view, no authority is needed. In the present case, however, that is not what the Court has done. The Court followed the decision in Jaswantlal v. Western Comp. India : (1959)61BOMLR1087 . It was held there that whenever a licensor approaches the regular Court suing his licensee the Court has jurisdiction to decide and determine the suit in spite of the fact that the defendant may raise a contention that he is a tenant and, not a licensee. It was further held that the Court must give a finding whether the defendant is a licensee. If it comes to the conclusion that the defendant is a licensee and that the licence is terminated then it is bound to make a decree. If it comes to the conclusion that he is not a licensee then it must dismiss the suit. There is no question then of returning the plaint for presentation to another Court. In short the Court assumes jurisdiction and entertaining the suit decides the suit on merits and if the plaintiff fails in substantiating the suit on merits the suit is dismissed. What the learned Judge did in answering issue No. 1 in the way he did, was that, having found that the relationship was not that of a licensor and a licensee he held that he had no jurisdiction to grant the relief of possession. It does not amount to a finding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The principle, therefore, enunciated by Mr. Motwani cannot apply to the present case.

(3.) EVEN assuming that the learned Judge had no such jurisdiction even so as the matter is now pending before us in revision, under Sub -section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, it is our duty to consider the question as to whether or not the plaint was erroneously admitted, and if we find that the plaint was admitted erroneously on payment of deficit court -fees, to call upon the plaintiff to make good the deficit. This sub -section provides.whenever any such suit comes before a Court of appeal, reference or revision, if such Court considers that the said question has been wrongly decided to the detriment of the revenue, it shall require the party by whom such fee has been paid to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable had the question been rightly decided. It is argued that the suit must come before a Court of appeal directly from the judgment against which an appeal, reference or revision is filed. It is not possible1 to uphold this contention. This is a revision application and in this revision application the suit is before us and in our view, we are entitled to decide as to what court -fees the plaintiff ought to pay.