HARISHANKAR Vs. SHIVSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants, Hari Shankar and Suresh Chandra, have filed this revision application against the order dated 19 -6 -72 by the first Additional District Judge, Gwalior by which issue No. 8 pertaining to the question of Court -fee was decided in favour of the plaintiff non -applicants.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision application may be stated as follows.

(3.) THE plaintiff fixed the valuation of the suit for declaration as Rs. 25,000/ - and for temporary injunction Rs. 100/ -. For the relief of declaration he paid fixed Court -fee of Rs. 20 and for purposes of perpetual injunction he filed Court -fee of Rs 20. Thus the suit was brought on a Court -fee Rs. 40/ -. The suit was resisted by the defendants interalia on the ground that the Court -fee should have been paid for the relief of injunction on the valuation of Rs. 25,000/ -. Issue No.8 which deals with the question of Court -fee was taken as a preliminary issue and the learned first Additional District Judge, Gwalior, by the impugned order held that the Court -fee was proper and sufficient. 1964 JLJ 448=AIR 1965 MP 4. Motiram v. Daulat, 23 MPLC 74= AIR 1939 Nag 50. Baldeoram v. Nathulal, 1963 JLJ SN 8 and Gyanchand v. Halkibai, 1963 JLJ SN 203. 6. On the other hand Mr. Sahasrabudhe, learned counsel for the plaintiff -non -petitioners has urged that the petitioners have no right to move this Court by way of revision on the question of adequacy of Court -fee payable on the plaint. In support of his contention he has relied upon Shri Rathnavarmuraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299 and Hari Narayan v. Williams, AIR 1976 All 441. In the alternative he has also submitted that the Court -fee paid is sufficient and in support of this alternative submission he has relied upon Malji Vs. Kesrimal, 1963 JLJ 150; 7. In Shrj Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimia (supra), their Lordship observed as follows: -