B.S.SAXENA Vs. ARUNIMA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directing against the order dated 20th April, 2005 passed by the learned Addl.District Judge (F.T.C. No.III), Bhubaneswar in M.S. No.3/198 of 2005/2004 rejecting the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 7(i) of the Orissa Court Fees Act for rejection of the plaint.

(2.) THE facts, as narrated in the application, are as follows : The present opposite parties as plaintiffs filed C.S. No.198 of 2004 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar for realization of damages of Rs.51,80,000/ - (rupees fifty one lakh eighty thousand) from the defendants within a specified period and in default to pay the amount, interest and cost with pendente lite and future interest as per the banks rate. In the plaint, they alleged that in pursuance of matrimonial column published on 6.10.2002 in the English daily "The Times of India" inviting proposal for marriage of plaintiff no.1, defendant No.1 proposed for marriage of his son with plaintiff No.1. The father and brother of plaintiff No.1 came to Lucknow, the place of the defendants for negotiation. The plaintiffs further alleged that the marriage was settled with defendant No.2 and it was decided that the marriage would take place at Lucknow. While the matter stood thus, defendant No.2 gave a telephonic message that he had decided to marry an American citizen. Feeling aggrieved by the said refusal of defendant No.2 to marry plaintiff No.1, the present suit has been filed. The petitioners have filed a copy of the plaint as Annexure -1 to this revision application. Since the plaintiffs are women, they were exempted from paying the Court fees as per Section 35 of the Courts Fees Act. Notice was issued to the defendants. They appeared and filed their written statement as well as an application on 13.9.2004 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) (c) of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 7(i) of the Orissa Court fees Act before the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed their objection to the said application. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Court of learned Addl.District Judge (FTC No.III), Bhubaneswar where it was registered as M.S. No.3/1998 of 2005/2004. The Court below afresh considering the said application and the objection, rejected the defendants application on 20.4.2005 on the ground that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which gives rise to the suit. Correctness of the different facts and dates of cause of action stated by the plaintiffs, though denied by the defendants, can be seen only during trial of the suit. As regards non -payment of Court fees, since the plaintiffs are women they were exempted from paying the Court fees.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs -opposite parties vehemently argued that the plaintiffs being women were exempted from payment of Court fees and as the cause of action arose at Bhubaneswar, the Court below rightly rejected the application of the defendants. Therefore, the impugned order should not be interfered with.