PADAM SINGH MUNNALAL Vs. RAM KRISHAN DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point for determination in this revision is, if in a suit to redeem the pledge of ornament the court -fee is payable under Section 7 Clause (ix) of Court Fees Act on the principal amount of the loan or on the market value of the ornaments under Section 7, Clause (iii) of the said Act. Section 4 of the Indore Court Fees Act which is in force in Madhyabharat corresponds to Section 7 of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870. The Plaintiff non -applicant brought a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Shajapur, alleging that he took a loan of Rs. 250/ - from the Defendant on pledge of certain specified ornaments. The amount due for in loan, with interest was alleged to be Rs. 440/ - and the Plaintiff prayed that on payment of this loan by him, the Defendant should be ordered to return the ornaments in specie. The Civil Judge thought that the value of this suit was only Rs. 440/ - and therefore returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, meaning thereby the Court of Munsif which had then jurisdiction upto Rs. 500/ - only.

(2.) THE Plaintiff then went in appeal to the learned District Judge who was of opinion that the Court -fees should be levied according to Clause (ix) of Section 7 of the Court -Fees Act and that the learned. Civil Judge had jurisdiction. The appeal was therefore, allowed and the case, was sent back to he Civil Judge's Court. The applicant Defendant has now come in this Court and wants me to revise this order.

(3.) THE learned District Judge's order dated 1 -4 -1950 is not clear and is also erroneous. He held that Clause (ix) of Section 7 would apply. In that case, the learned Civil Judge's order was correct and ought not to have been reversed. But as I have stated above Clause (ix) has no application but Clause (iii) would apply. It may be noted here that after the passing of the order by the learned; Civil Judge there have, however, been several changes in the jurisdiction vested in the Civil Courts. The learned District Judge has not considered this change in the jurisdiction of the various Courts brought but by the Madhya Bharat Civil Courts Act which he ought to have considered while delivering the judgment. The rulings reported in 'Lachmeshwar Prasad v. Keshwarlal' : AIR 1941 FC 5 (F); 'Shyamakant Lal v. Rambhajan Singh' : A.I.R. 1939 FC 74 (G); 'Doorga Prosad v. Secy of State' : AIR 1945 PC 62 (H); 'Har Prasad v. Ram Anand Prasad', AIR 1946 Oudh 223 at p. 225 (I); 'Lakshmi Ammal v. Narayanaswami' : A.I.R. 1950 Mad 321 (J); 'Gorakala Kankaiya v. Janardha Padhai' 36' Mad 439 (FB) (K) and 'Shantiniketan Co -operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Madhavlal' : AIR 1936 Bom 37 at p. 40 (L) lay down that appellate courts do and are entitled to take into account the changes in legislation which occur between the date of the decree of the lower Court and the date of hearing of the appeal.