SATYANARAYANA Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the language in Sec. 11 (2) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act VII of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') directing that "All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before the hearing of the suit" is mandatory or only a directory is the question involved in this revision petition. Since this question is of general importance, the learned single Judge has referred the same to a Division Bench. The lesrned single Judge Madhava Reddy, J (as he then was) in the order of reference has also noted that there is a conflict of opinion between Andrew Chalmera Internationals Ltd., England vs. Indian Tobacco Suppliers (Pvt.) Ltd Chilakaluripet and Subrahmanyam vs. C. Venkataramana and therefore it is necessary to have an authoritative pronouncement on the question.

(2.) In O.S. No. 959 of 1980 on the file of the II Addl. Judge, CityCivil Court, Hyderabad, the second defendant filed a petition under Sec. 11 (2) of the Act read with Order XIV Rule 2 (b) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to decide the issue relating to the valuation of the suit and quantum of court-fee payable in the suit as a preliminary issue. The learned II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad held that the issue relating to the payment of court fee can be decided after completion of evidence and the same cannot be treated as a preliminary issue at that stage as it is unnecessary and as it results in repetition. Therefore he proposed to try the issue relating to payment of court fee along with other issues and in that view he dismissed the petition. Against that order the present revision petition is preferred.

(3.) Madhava Reddy, J. (as he then was) in his order of referenceobserved that though he was of the view that the learned Addl. Judge has not committed any error of law or material irregularity or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in refusing to decide the issue regarding the Court fee as a preliminary issue, yet in view of the conflict of opinions, he referred the same to the Division Bench.