GOVERNMENT PLEADER Vs. GROUNDNUT EXTRACTION EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this application in revision purporting to do so under Section 5(2) of the Bombay Court -fees Act, 1959.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this application are that on December 21, 1972, respondents No. 1, who are the plaintiffs, filed an Interpleader Suit on the Original Side of this High Court, being Short Cause Suit No. 41 of 1978, against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,10,217.74 P. Respondents No. 1 paid ad valorem Court -fees on their plaint. When this suit reached hearing before Nain J., on June 12, 1973 as a Short Cause for directions, Nain J., directed the plaintiffs to bring into and deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 1,05,00 within seven days. Ho further granted an injunction restraining the respondents No. 3 from proceeding further with the garnishes proceedings adopted by them in the Court of the subordinate Judge, Vijayanagaram, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He then adjourned the suit for four weeks and further directed that the exact amount which would have to be deposited by respondents No. 1 would be determined at the time of giving directions when the suit came up as a Short Cause and the question of the respondents No. 1 being dismissed from the suit would be considered at that time.

(3.) AT the hearing of this application a preliminary objection was raised to its maintainability on behalf of respondents No. 2 who are the first defendants to the suit. Mr. Vahanvati, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2, submitted that the order of Nain J., was not under Section 5 of the said Act but was made under Section 9(1) of the said Act and that a revision only lay when the Taxing Master's decision was given upon a reference made to him under Section 5(2) of the said Act. Mr. Sanghavi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand submitted that on a correct reading of the order of Nain J., it could not be said that it was made under Section 9(1) of the said Act and that though, strictly speaking, the said order did not fall within the four corners of Section 5(2) of the said Act, the Court should so construe the said Section 5(2) as to hold that the said order was made under it.