KRISHNAJI HARI DHAMDHERE Vs. GOPAL NARAYAN DHAMDHERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal both the Courts below have held that the plaint must be rejected owing to insufficient Court-fees having been paid by the plaintiffs. The legality of the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(6), of the Civil Procedure Code, is the only question for consideration.

(2.) The suit is nominally one for accounts of the rent recovered by the defendants and for payment of the plaintiffs share in those rents, when the amount recovered has been ascertained. The plaintiffs had previously given notice to the defendants (exhibit 80), calling upon them to pay to them a sum of Rs. 1,699-12-0. In the suit the plaintiffs put a valuation of Rs. 1,500 for pleader's fees, but no more than Rs. 200 for Court-fees. It was held by both the Courts that the valuation of Rs. 200 for the purpose of Court-fees was purely fictitious. The trial Court ordered that the plaintiffs should pay Court-fee upon the amount claimed in their notice (exhibit 80), holding that this would be a correct valuation of the plaintiffs claim in the suit. When they failed to do this, their plaint was rejected, and on appeal the District Judge confirmed the order of the lower Court, holding that the plaintiffs valuation for Court-fees at Rs. 200 only was a deliberate attempt to defeat the provisions of a fiscal enactment.

(3.) A preliminary point is taken in this appeal to the effect that no appeal lies by reason of Section 12 of the Court-fees Act. That section provides that every question relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee chargeable on a plaint shall be decided by the Court in which the plaint is presented, and shall be final, as between parties to the suit. It has however been held in Dada V/s. Nagesh (1898) I.L.R. 23 Bom. 486, that though there is no appeal against a decision as to the correct valuation for any particular class of suits, still there is an appeal against a decision that any particular suit falls within a particular class. Here, though the suit is nominally one for accounts, still it is part of the case for the defendants that the suit is really one for an ascertained sum of money, falling under Section 7 (iv) (f) of the Court-fees Act. Thus clearly even on the case of the defendants there is a conflict between the plaintiffs and the defendants as to the class within which the suit falls. There is, therefore, an appeal available.