PERUMALLAKASI RAO Vs. NUKALA MURALIKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.S.Nos. 82, 83 and 84 of 2013 are filed by the sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 43 of 2011 in the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, against nine defendants. Three applications, being I.A. Nos. 362, 363 and 364 of 2011, were filed by defendants 2 and 4, defendant No.1 and defendant Nos. 5 to 9, respectively, under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the plaint. Through a common order, dated 15.02.2012, the trial Court allowed the applications, and thereby, rejected the plaint. Hence, three appeals came to be filed before this Court by the plaintiff. Raising an objection as to the adequacy of the Court fee paid by the appellant, the respondents filed A.S.M.P. Nos. 782, 783 and 784 of 2013, with a prayer to reject the appeals. The appellant, on the other hand, filed a set of applications with a prayer to permit him to pay the deficit Court fee. He has also filed A.S.M.P. No. 287 of 2013 with a prayer to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property.

(2.) Since the appeals are against an order of rejection of plaint, we proposed to hear the appeals themselves. However, learned counsel for the respondents insisted that the miscellaneous applications alone be heard. Hence, we propose to dispose of the applications.

(3.) Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the Court fee of just Rs. 10/- was paid on each appeal and the same is totally untenable. He contends that once the decree is passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit, the same Court fee as was paid in the suit, ought to have been paid in the appeals also. He places reliance upon Section 47 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and certain precedents. He further contends that the appeals were directed only against the orders passed in the applications filed under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C., and no appeal, as such, was filed against the decree that was separately drawn in the suit. With these and other reasons, he prays for rejection of the appeals.