MEITTYUNJOY BANERJI Vs. BIBHUTI BHUSAN CHAKRABARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule against an order of the Munsif, First Court, Tamluk, directing a plaint to be returned for filing in proper court. Two Plaintiffs originally filed their suit in the Third Court of the Munsif at Tamluk, who had jurisdiction up to Rs. 1,000 only. He examined the question of court-fees under Section 8B of the Court-fees Act and decided, on February 11, 1949, that the Plaintiff's valuation of Rs. 900 was correct. There was an issue as to jurisdiction but no specific finding was recorded on that, although the decision of the question of jurisdiction automatically followed in view of the nature of the case and the provisions of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act.

(2.) When the case was ready on June 3, 1949, it was transferred, at the request of the Subdivisional Munsif, First Court (who presumably was short of work) and in anticipation of the sanction of the District Judge. The case proceeded and just before judgment, the Munsif in the First Court decided, rightly, that under the provisions of Section 8B of the Court-fees Act he was required again to certify that the court-fees paid was correct, notwithstanding the fact that the question had already been considered at an earlier stage. On investigating the question, he came to the conclusion that the value on which court-fee should be paid was in fact nearer Rs. 4,000 than the figure determined by the Munsif of the Third Court and directed the plaint to be returned, as this was beyond his own pecuniary jurisdiction.

(3.) This Rule was obtained principally on the ground that the learned Munsif in the first court had acted erroneously in reopening the question of court-fee at a late stage. Having regard to the clear provisions of Section 8B of the Court-fees Act, I have no doubt that the learned Munsif acted correctly in this matter. In the present case, there can be no doubt that some hardship has been caused to the Plaintiff as a result of the learned Munsif following the provisions of the Court-fees Act. In fact, it seems to me there is a direct conflict of principle between the provisions of the Court-fees Act and those of the Suits Valuation Act, which comes into play in those cases which come under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, which makes valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction to be the same as that for court-fees. The principle underlying the amended sections of the Court-fees Act, as in operation in West Bengal, is to see that the Government revenue does not suffer and the provisions are made stringent, so that, even at a very late stage, the court is enjoined to see that proper court-fee has been paid. But the result is, where in cases governed by Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, this very action may, as in the present case, suddenly show that the whole proceedings have been without jurisdiction. Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act deals, among other matters, with the position in the appellate court dealing with cases where the question of jurisdiction may or may not have been agitated in the trial court. The principle underlying the section is very similar to that underlying Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely, that questions of jurisdiction are to be agitated and decided at the earliest stage and as far as is reasonable and just, suits should, if possible, not be allowed to fail because subsequently it can be shown that under the rules applicable, the trial court did not, in fact, have pecuniary jurisdiction. The two principles are irreconcilable and as I have said, are brought into headlong collision in cases where Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act operates. The present is an instance. If the learned Munsif had overlooked his duties under Section 8B of the Court-fees Act and the matter had gone on appeal, it may well have been that the appellate court, under the provisions of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, could have, in fact, itself overlooked the defect in jurisdiction.