TRILOKINATH AGRAWAL Vs. SHEELARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by order dt. 5.2.2004 by which the trial Court has rejected his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Facts in short of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents. In the suit petitioner valued the suit at Rs. 15 lakhs for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction but for the purposes of payment of court-fees, the suit was valued at Rs. 24,000/- and the court-fees paid was Rs. 3,360/- as described in para 15 of the plaint. The trial Court vide order dt. 28.11.2003 directed the petitioner to pay the appropriate court-fees on the valuation of the suit. As, under section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, two different valuation cannot be put by the plaintiff, one for pecuniary jurisdiction and another for the payment of court-fees. This order was assailed by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition which was registered as W.P. 28744/03 and - finally decided on 5.1.2004, and the petitioner was granted liberty to move appropriate application before the trial Court for correcting the valuation and payment of appropriate court-fees.

(2.) THE petitioner after the aforesaid order moved two applications before the trial Court, one under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, another under section 152 CPC by which plaintiff though stated that the land in question is agriculture land which is recorded in the revenue paper as revenue paying land and the court-fees is payable on the basis of twenty times of the land revenue but it appears that cleverly plaintiff has neither put any valuation nor has specified the court-fees payable on the plaint. The trial Court vide order dated 5.2.2004 rejected both the applications on the ground that previously plaintiff shown the land as diverted land and before the tehsil Court there is admission of the plaintiff that the land is diverted land and now, the plaintiff cannot withdraw his admission, and' rejected the applications. This is the order which is assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the trial Court and contended that the land is in fact diverted land, huge commercial construction over the land is standing which is apparent from the perusal of the map filed alongwith the plaint. The plaintiff has to put a proper valuation and to pay court-fees. The suit is for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Plaintiff in para 15 of the plaint has pleaded the valuation as 15 Lacs, he has to pay proper court-fees. The provisions of section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 shall apply in this case and plaintiff is bound to pay ad-velorem Court fees.