RAM CHANDER Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kurukshetra dismissing the application of the defendant -petitioner filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') wherein the prayer was made for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff -respondent did not affix the proper court fee. The application was dismissed on 3.4.2001 by the Civil Judge by recording the following order: -

(2.) Shri R.S. Longia, learned Counsel for the defendant -petitioner has drawn my attention to the averment made in para 3 and the prayer made in the plaint wherein substantial relief of possession has been made. According to the learned Counsel, the court fee payable by the plaintiff -respondent has to be under Sec. 7(v)(e) of the Court Fee Act, 1870(for brevity, the Act') - In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Niranjan Kaur v/s. Nirbigan Kaw : (1982) 84 PLR 127. According to the learned Counsel, Full Bench has taken the view that in deciding the question of court fee, the court is required to look into the allegation made in the plaint to find out what it the real relief claimed. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint is not to be permitted the court is not prevented from looking at the substance of the relief claimed. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Rishi v/s. Gurbaksh Singh , 1998 2 P.L.R. 417 and also another judgment of this Court in the case of Ranjit Singh v/s. Balkar Singh , 2000 2 P.L.R. 382. According to the learned Counsel, the valuation of the suit furnished by the plaintiff -respondent is Rs.200/ - and effectuation of the court fee of Rs.25/ - on the plaint is patently against Sec. 7(v)(e) of the Act. He has further alleged that amount of Rs.30,000/ - has already been paid to the plaintiff -respondent and the defendant -petitioner was given the possession which is part performance of contract under Ss. 53 -A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Pritam Saini, learned Counsel for the plaintiff -respondent has argued that the Civil Judge on 3.4.2001 vide impugned order dismissed the application of the defendant -petitioner only at that stage. He has argued that there is no final decision taken and the defendant -petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh application in that regard. In support of his contention, Shri Saini has relied on a judgment of Delhi High court in Ashoka Builders and Promoters v/s. Edward Keventer (Successors) Pvt. Ltd. , 1994 2 P.L.R.D. 29. He has drawn my attention to the last portion of para No. 13 and advanced the argument that if after filing the written statement objection is raised with regard to valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction a specific issue has to be framed by the Court and on the evidence led by both the parties the Court may reach an appropriate finding and if any directions are required to be issued to the plaintiff -respondent then the Court would be competent to issue those directions.