CHANDRAKANT Vs. VAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs in the suit is directed against the order dated 5th April, 1983, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, whereby he rejected the plaint under O.7, R.11(b) read with (c), C.P.C.

(2.) The appellants have filed a suit for the following reliefs :

(3.) The suit was resisted by the respondents and inter alia they raised the question that the suit was undervalued for the purposes of court-fee. By his order dated 19th Nov. 1974, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, directed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint stating the value of the subject-matter as being Rs. 35,668/- and to pay the difference of court-fee as per the observations made in his order. A revision application was filed by the present appellants against the said order in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Goa, Daman and Diu. At the hearing of the said revision application, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein pointed out that the relief claimed under Cl.(d) is an alternative relief in relation to the relief of permanent injunction prayed for under Cl.(c) and, therefore, the court-fee has to be paid on the larger value of the two reliefs. The learned Judicial Commissioner agreed with this submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and, accordingly, set aside the order dated 19th Nov. 1974, passed by the learned Civil-Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, and remanded the matter to the trial Court to be decided in accordance with the directions given by him. After the matter was received in the trial Court, it appears that the learned Advocate appearing for both the parties had agreed on 29th July, 1982, that prayer (d) should be valued at Rs. 3,400/- and that the plaintiffs should pay the court-fee on it. They further admitted that prayer (d) was an alternative prayer and therefore the plaintiffs were directed to pay the difference of court-fee on the said amount of Rs. 3,400/- within two months from 29th July, 1982.