RANI SURAJ KAUR Vs. HARIBACHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sardarni Suraj Kumar and Harbhajan Singh instituted a suit for declaration that they were owners of the property in suit and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining defendants from getting the property partitioned or from taking possession. The suit was instituted in 1961. In respect of the relief for permanent injunction and declaration Rs. 19.50 were paid as court-fee and the value of court-fee and jurisdiction was fixed at Rs. 200/-. thus in all a court-fee of Rs. 40/- was paid on the plaint. The defendants resisted the suit and raised a large number of pleas urging, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable in the form in which it was instituted; the valuation of the house property given in the plaint was not correct; the plaint was not properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction and otherwise it required amendment. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge ambala by his order dated 30th September, 1963 overruled these objections and held that the plaint did not require any amendment. Subsequently, as a result of the re-organisation of the State of Punjab the suit was transferred to the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Ropar. Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner Ropar applied for being himself impleaded as a party. His application was granted and the plaint was amended. During the pendency of the trial an objection was taken by the auditors that the plaint as amended had been wrongly valued for purposes of court-fee and as the suit fell under Section 7(iv)(c) of Court Fees Act it should have been valued in accordance with that provision and instead of the original court-fee of Rs. 40/-, the plaintiffs must accordingly make up the deficiency in court-fee amounting to Rs. 2,645.60. The plaintiffs, however objected to the payment of this additional court-fee but their objection was over-ruled by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Ropar and he ordered them to make up the deficiency by 9th July, 1969. It is against this order of the trial Court dated 2nd July, 1969 that this petition for revision has been brought by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The petitioners' learned counsel has contended that since the issue of deficiency of court-fee raised before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge at Ambala, who was originally seized of the case and defendants' objection was repelled, that order operated as res judicata and the question of court-fee could not be repended by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Ambala to whom the case was subsequently transferred. He has also urged that under Section 12 of the Court Fees Act, the decision of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Ambala dated 30th September, 1963 had become final and the petitioners could not be asked to pay additional court-fee, even if the auditors had taken objection that the court-fee paid was deficient.

(3.) The respondents' learned counsel controverting the plea of finality of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ambala, has urged that no petition for revision is competent. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Dr. Harbans Lal Khosla v. Mohan Lal Sanon, 1954 AIR(P&H) 205, where Falshaw, J. as he then was held :-