RAGHUNATH GANESH THAKAR Vs. VAMAN VASUDEV CHITALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revisional application against the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Page 1 of 5 Raghunath Ganesh Thakar vs. Vaman Vasudev Chitale (01.07.1949 - BOMHC) Division, Poona, directing the plaintiff to pay the necessary court-fee on a plaint which was transferred to his Court under orders of this Court. The plaintiff filed suit No. 1920 of 1946 on the Original Side of this Court against the defendant, who is the opponent before me. The defendant filed is the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Poona, suit No. 820 of 1943 against the petitionerplaintiff for a certain declaration and injunction. The defendant applied to this Court by application, being Civil Application No. 324 of 1947, for an order transfering the suit on the Original Side of this Court to the Poona Civil Judge's Court with a direction that that suit be heard with suit No. 820 of 1946. This Court by its order dated 27th November 1947, directed as follows:

(2.) It is contended by Mr. Bhalerao on behalf of the petitioner that the plaint was properly filed with the institution fee which is required to be paid on the original side of this Court, and the suit having been properly instituted no question of payment of any further court-fee could arise on a transfer of the suit to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Poona. Mr. Bhalerao contends that it is by reason of the order of the Court that the suit had been transferred and he says that the Poona Court has no jurisdiction to direct that any further amount of court-fee be paid. Mr. Bhalerao says that the order of transfer was not the result of a voluntary act on the part of the plaintiff, but it was in pursuance of an order of the Court that the transfer of the suit had taken place; and he relies on the adage that the 'act of the Court shall causes prejudice to none.' Therefore, he contends that if a plaint is properly filed on the original side of this Court, a subsequent transfer by the Court to another Court cannot render the plaint liable to court-fee to which it would not have been liable if the suit had continued on the original side of this Court. Mr. Bhalerao also relies upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bibee Golap Kumari Saheba, v. Md. Kadiruddin, 12 C. W. N. 917. Page 2 of 5 Raghunath Ganesh Thakar vs. Vaman Vasudev Chitale (01.07.1949 - BOMHC)

(3.) Now the court-fee chargeable on documents which are filed, exhibited or recorded in any Court of Justice other than the Courts referred to in chap, II, Court-fees Act is provided for in Schedules I and II, Court-fees Act. Section 6, Court-fees Act provides as follows: