ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Vs. VISION NEONA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision are at the instance of the defendant and as directed against the Orders passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in IA No. 104 of 2003 in OS No.237 of 2002 and IA No.509 of 2002 in OS No.237 of 2002.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant M/s Oriental Bank of Commerce for accounts. He had estimated the amount due from the defendant at Rs.47,04,613/- and valued the suit at Rs.2 lakhs tentatively. The defendant filed a petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the suit as the plaintiff did not pay the Court fee on Rs.47,04,613/-. The said application was heard by the learned Judge and it was dismissed by an Order dated 4.8.2003. The said Order is assailed in the present civil revision petition by the defendant.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the Order passed by the lower Court is wholly illegal and the lower Court failed to properly appreciate the ingredients for assessing the estimated value of the relief in a suit for accounts. He further submits that when the plaintiff has clearly stated in the plaint that he is entitled for a sum of Rs.47,04,613/- by giving the details of cheques, which are liable to be credited to his account and after deducting a sum of Rs.22 lakhs, which is due to the bank, he became entitled for the balance as aforesaid, in such a situation, the plaintiff was required to pay Court fee and he cannot value the suit whimsically and pay the Court fee on Rs.2 lakhs. It is further contention of the learned Counsel that the lower Court has not properly appreciated the decision reported in M/s. Commercial Aviation and Travel Company v. Mrs. Vimla Pannalal, AIR 1988 SC 1636. Therefore, he submits that the lower Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.