DAULAT RAM Vs. PARSINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision must fail in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, 1961 AIR(SC) 1299. In this case, their Lordships observed that, whether proper Court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. The jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by clauses (a) to (c) thereof. The defendant who may believe and even honestly, that proper Court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior Courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of Court-fee payable on the plaint.

(2.) Mr. Puri, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Shri Mathra Dass v. Ram Kali,1969 PunLR 543. I am of the view that this decision cannot have precedence over the Supreme Court decision. In any case, I am not concerned in this case to determine as to what is the category in which the suit falls. The trial Court has held that proper Court-fee has been paid on the plaint. That being the case and in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shri Rathnavarmaraja's case this petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.