SATYADEO RAI ALIAS SATDEO SINGH Vs. BHAIRAV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, the petitioner, who is one of the defendants in Title Suit No. 296 of 1984, has assailed an order dated 13.2.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge VI, Motihari, in whose file the suit was pending, whereby the petition which had been filed by this petitioner on 16.1.1996 praying for giving direction to the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee, has been rejected. Office has raised a question of maintainability of this revision petition in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rathnavarrnaraja v. Smt. Virnal reported in A.I.R. 1961 SC 1299.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ratio of that case will not apply, inasmuch as the petitioner's stand taken before the lower court was that exemption from payment of court fee has been obtained by the plaintiffs by playing fraud and they, as a matter of fact, do not belong to the weaker section entitled to exemption from payment of court fee. According to his submission, since fraud has been alleged, ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court cannot be applied to hold that this revision petition is not maintainable.

(3.) I do not think that this contention can be accepted. By this revision petition, the petitioner defendant essentially wants to raise the question of payment of court fee relating to which he has no locus standi. To be sure, he alleged that fraud was committed by the plaintiffs -opposite party in obtaining exemption from payment of court fee, but the court below has already negatived his stand which has been taken belatedly after some evidence had already been adduced. The question whether the plaintiffs are entitled to exemption from payment of court fee is essentially a question between the concerned plaintiffs and the State and the trial court and if the trial court has already held that the plaintiffs -opposite party was entitled to exemption and no fraud was committed in obtaining exemption and thus has given finding against the defendant -petitioner in this matter, I do not think that he can be held to have locus standi to make prayer that the court should give direction to the plaintiffs for payment of court fee. In substance and in effect the petitioner is seeking to agitate the matter of payment of court fee by the plaintiffs' side. But the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has held that the defendant has no locus standi in such matter.