RAGHUNANDAN GIR Vs. DEORAJ GIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise an interlocutory order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Gaya in the following circumstances: The plaintiff- respondent sued to obtain certain reliefs and on the plaint paid a court-fee of Rs. 15 as in a suit for a mere declaration of title. The defendant thereupon petitioned the Court to determine the question of valuation of the suit and the sufficiency of the court-fee paid. The learned Subordinate Judge proceeded to accede to this request and on a consideration of the matter decided that the court-fee paid was sufficient. Against that order the defendant has moved this Court. The matter first came before a single Judge who referred it to a Division Bench on account of the lack of uniformity in rulings of the Court in regard to interference in revision in court-fee matters. In so far as orders in favour of the plaintiff are concerned there appeals to be consensus of opinion of all the Courts that such an order is not revisable: [see Kanhaya Lal V/s. Baldeo Lal 1925 Pat 708, Muhammad Elliyas v. Rahima Bee 1929 Mad 191, Kattiya Pillai V/s. Ramasamy Pillai. 1929 Mad 396, Balkrishna V/s. Ramkishun 1929 All 957, G.M. Falkner V/s. Mirza Mahomed Syed Ali 1925 Cal 814 and Secy. of State V/s. Raghunathan 1933 Mad 506. In the last mentioned case, the learned Chief Justice at p. 748 said: No case has been referred to where this High Court or any other High Court has held that, where a favourable decision has been given as regards court-fee to the plaintiff, the High Court will exercise its revisional powers. I am clearly of the opinion that in such cases the High Court has no power of revision either under Section 115, Civil P.C., or under Section 107, Government of India Act.

(2.) The applicant relies on certain observations in Ram Bhusan Das V/s. Bachu Rai 1934 Pat 641. That was a case in which an order had been passed against the plaintiff and it was the plaintiff who moved the High Court. There are observations in the judgment suggesting a distinction between cases in which the order of the Court is merely concerned with the question of valuation and cases in which the order of the Court is concerned with the category into which the plaintiff's suit falls. It was held that in the latter class of cases the order is revisable by the High Court under Section 115. Those observations however were in the nature of obiter dicta, for the plaintiff's petition was rejected on its merits. In Sham Narain Singh V/s. Basudeo Prasad Singh 1930 Pat 277, Wort and Kulwant Sahay, JJ., refused to entertain an application to revise an order in a court-fee matter even where the order was one calling upon the plaintiff to pay a large additional court-fee, as in such a case there is another remedy open to the plaintiff by way of appeal if his plaint is rejected for non-compliance with the order. With regard to this case, the learned Chief Justice in Ram Bhusan Das V/s. Bachu Rai 1934 Pat 641 said: The report of that case gives no indication in itself as to the class of the decision which was given by the lower Court. One may infer however from the facts, that the learned Judges decided that revision did not lie and that the matter was really one of quantum and not of category. To my mind this case gives us no guidance in the matter. It is quite consistent with the Court having held that if it had been a case of the category under the section into which the suit fell, they might have been inclined to revise the decision.

(3.) It is clear therefore that the learned Chief Justice was under the impression that the case of Sham Narain Singh V/s. Basudeo Prasad Singh 1930 Pat 277 had been decided on the assumption that no question as to the category into which the suit fell was in issue in that case and that the only question which arose for decision was with regard to the quantum of court-fee. Wort, J., who was one of the judges who decided the case in Sham Narain Singh V/s. Basudeo Prasad Singh 1930 Pat 277 referred to this matter in a later case, Kumar Ramkinkar Singh v. Jogendra Nath Singh 1935 Pat 186. His Lordships said: The learned Chief Justice in the case to which I have first referred has stated that the decision reported in Sham Narain Singh V/s. Basudeo Prasad Singh 1930 Pat 277 might be explained on the basis that it came within that class of case which was not open to revision. But as a party to that judgment I must say that the matter there in dispute was whether the Judge had rightly decided what was the nature of the action brought by the plaintiff and therefore what was the proper court-fee: in other words, what category did the case come within.