MANJULA MITTAL ALIAS MANJU RANI Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition assails the order dated 17.08.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, whereby the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred as 'respondent No. 1) was directed to make good the deficiency of Court fee. Factual matrix of the case is that vide order dated 29.07.2009 passed by the trial Court, respondent No. 1 was asked to pay ad valorem Court fee on the value of the suit i.e. the sale deed under challenge. The said order was challenged before this Court in Civil Revision No. 4871 of 2009. This Court, vide order dated 11.01.2010, set aside the order dated 29.07.2009 and directed the trial Court to assess the impact of amended provisions of Court fee as applicable to the State of Haryana and permit to affix the Court fee in accordance with the same. Thereafter, the trial Court, while assessing the value of the suit property, directed respondent No. 1 to pay the Court fee as per the provisions of Section 7(v)(a)(c) of the Court Fee Act. The defendant No. 1-petitioner has challenged the said order by filing the present petition.

(2.) At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has contended that when the Court has directed to affix the Court fee as per provisions of the Court Fee Act, the revision is not maintainable.

(3.) To my mind, the question of court fee on the plaint is between the plaintiff and the State and the defendant has no right to move to the superior court by way of appeal or revision. Similar observations were made by the Apex Court in case Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt Vimla, 1961 AIR(SC) 1299 which reads as under:--