SURAT SINGH Vs. JAGDISH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE salient facts of the case stated in the order of reference briefly are as follows: On 15th October, 1971, a decree for Rs. 21,500 as compensation for non -performance of a contract was passed in favour of Jagdish and Jagan Nath, Defendants 1 and 2. The present suit was brought by Surat Singh for cancellation of the decree on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and collusion. The Plaintiff also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from executing the decree. The Plaintiff valued the suit for purposes of court -fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 130 only. Accordingly, Rs. 13 was affixed as court -fee. The valuation was challenged by the Defendants. The trial Court accepted their objection and directed the Plaintiff to pay ad valorem court -fee of Rs. 1953.60 on the above -said amount of Rs. 21,500. Feeling aggrieved, the Plaintiff preferred the present revision petition.

(2.) THAT the present suit is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act has not been disputed before us. The relevant part of Section 7 dealing with the computation of fees payable in certain suits for money, reads:

(3.) FOR finding out the true effect of the proviso in question, the history of the case law, which was not even cited before us, deserves consideration. The earliest in point is Full Bench decision in Barru and Ors. v. Lachhman and Ors., 111 PR 1913, laying down: