CHINNAM MARKENDESWARA RAO Vs. CHINNAM MADHURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Subba Reddy representing Sri VLNGK Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri A. Suryanarayana, the learned Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 Plaintiffs.

(2.) There is some controversy between the parties whether in fact Court-fee had been paid on the counter claim. The impugned order reads as hereunder: -

(3.) When counter claim is filed without payment of Court Fee, it is needless to say that inasmuch as the counter claim also may have to be treated as a plaint, the same may have to be rejected. This view had been expressed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Ramani Ammal v. Susilamma (AIR 1991 Madras 163) and also the learned Judge of Karnataka High Court in Parvathamma v. K.R. Lokanath (AIR 1991 Karnataka 283). However, there is an assertion on the part of the learned Counsel for petitioners that Court Fee of Rs.500/- had been paid but however the same is controverter by the Counsel representing R.1 and R.2 plaintiffs. The learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners also placed original challan before this Court. In the light of the same, the matter is remitted to the learned Judge to verify whether the Court Fee had been paid on the counter claim and if the Court Fee had been paid to entertain the counter claim or in the event of the petitioners moving appropriate applications praying for liberty to pay the requisite Court Fee, to give an opportunity to the petitioners to make goods the same by passing appropriate orders. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.