RAJESH JAISWAL Vs. SANJAY SARVAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/defendant has filed this revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 19.6.2013 passed by the Civil Judge Class-2 Dist. Anuppur in Civil suit No. 45-.A/2006, whereby after taking so many adjournment when the requisites court fees was not affixed/paid by the applicant/defendant on his counter claim then the same has been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for want of the Court fees.

(2.) Applicant counsel after taking me through the revision memo as well as impugned order place on the record by referring the earlier decision of the Full Bench of this court in the matter of Subhash Chandra Jain, Vs. The Chairman, M. P. Electricity Board and others, reported in 2000(4) MPHT 318 has argued that in view of the Para 6 of this judgment the impugned order is not sustainable and prayed that the impugned order being passed contrary to the aforesaid legal position be set aside, by admitting and allowing this revision.

(3.) Having heard the counsel keeping in view the argument I have carefully gone through the averments of the revision and the papers placed on record. So far the principal laid down in the aforesaid cited case is concerned, there is no dispute regarding such principal but the same is not applicable to the present case because the cited case is based on some other question relating to the arbitrary valuation. While in the present case despite extending so many opportunities to the applicant to submit the deficit court fees on the counter claim, neither the court fees was paid nor any application in that regard was filed. So in such premises the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order dismissing the counter claim of the applicant in default of payment of the deficit court fees. Even otherwise the impugned order appears to be passed by the trial court under the vested discretionary jurisdiction and as per settled preposition laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of The Managing Director (MiG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, hyderabad and another v. Ajit Prasad Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, 1973 AIR(SC) 76 holding that the order passed by the Subordinate Court under its vested jurisdiction could not be interfered under the revisional jurisdiction. Such principal is also laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Kokkanda B. Poondacha. & Ors. v. K. D. Ganapathi & Anr., 2011 AIR(SC) 1353in which while considering the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India it was held that discretionary order of the Subordinate Court could not be interfered by the High Court under the writ jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.