PURNEETA SETHI Vs. RITU SETHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved about the fact that the court has merely allowed the plaintiffs valuation to be dependent on the circle rate relating to the property which is the subject matter. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner/defendant who was objecting to the valuation is that the trial Court was in error in relegating the matter for determination of proper court fee till a later time which is against the mandate of Sections 9 and 10 of the Court Fees Act. The said provisions relate to the procedure that may be adopted for determination of valuation of the properly by appointing any person to make an inspection and report on the valuation to the property. The counsel would argue that the circle rate is meant for the purpose of assessment of stamp duty and registration and will not have any bearing to the determination of valuation for purpose of court fee. In my view, the intervention sought at the instance of the defendant is not proper in a revision petition. In the first place, an issue regarding court fee is not a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is a matter between the suitor and the court, for, the court is the custodian of the State revenue by collection of appropriate court fees and it is bound to ensure that the State revenue is not lost by payment of inadequate court fee. The Supreme Court in Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, 1961 AIR(SC) 1299 held as follows:-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner refer to Munshi v. Giani,1968 70 PunLR 530 and Lahore High Court in Sis Ram v. Sohan Lal and others, 1938 AIR(Lah) 311 which held that if objection regarding court fee has taken, the same be decided immediately. I do not think these decisions have any bearing to the case. We are hot confronted with a situation where Judge did not consider the issue of court fee at all. On the other hand, he took circle as a basis and left the issue of redetermination of any other value at a later stage. I do not find the procedure to be wrong.

(3.) The situation could be different in circumstances where the valuation has an immediate bearing to the pecuniary jurisdiction of a civil court. In the State of Haryana, the jurisdiction of civil courts is un-limited and it makes no difference for the exercise of jurisdiction by either a Civil Judge of a Junior Division or Senior Division.