SHANKARANARAYANA KADAMBALITHAYA Vs. VASUDEVA ACHUTA HEBBARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is unfortunate that the respondents are not represented. All the same, I do not think it necessary in the circumstances to issue notice to the Government Pleader, though the question for decision is the adequacy of the court-fee originally paid on the plaint.

(2.) It is not even necessary to canvass the correctness of the decision of the learned District Munsiff on the adequacy of the court-fee paid on the plaint. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner was that, whether the court-fee originally paid was sufficient or not, the learned Munsiff had no jurisdiction to-demand any additional court-fee at the stage at which he passed that order. After objections had been taken to the court-fee paid the matter was placed before the learned District Munsiff, and he directed that the question should be heard in open Court and decided. " Call on Bench 26 February, 1946" was the order he passed. Apparently he heard the plaintiff's vakil and adjourned it from 28 February, 1946 to 4 March, 1946, for consideration of the authorities; the authorities must have been cited on the 4 March, 1946. The learned District Munsiff then passed the order: It is not necessary for the plaintiff to pray for a declaration that the vaidagini lease deed is not valid and binding on him. Court-fee if paid is correct. File. Subsequently written statements were filed and issues were framed, by the learned District Munsiff who passed that order, dated 4 March, 1946. When the issue relating to the adequacy of court-fee paid came up for consideration before the successor of the learned Munsiff who passed that order, dated 4 March, 1946, that officer came to the conclusion that the court-fee paid on the plaint was insufficient.

(3.) I am unable to agree with the learned District Munsiff that the present case does not fall within the scope of Lakshmana Aiyar V/s. Palaniappa Chettiar (1935) 69 M.L.J. 479, decided by Venkatasubba Rao, J. There the learned Judge upheld the order of the 15th. February, 1932, in that case as a judicial decision which precluded any successor of the same judicial officer in that Court from re-opening the question of adequacy of the court-fee already paid. No doubt there was an issue in that suit whether court-fee paid was correct, and there was also the report of the court-fee examiner that the court-fee paid was not correct. As pointed out by Venkatasubba Rao, J., the intervention of the court-fee examiner can have no effect on the question for determination, whether a judicial officer having once judicially decided that the court-fee paid on the plaint was adequate was entitled to re-open the question at a later stage in the same Court. Any error committed by the judicial officer in deciding the adequacy of court-fee at that stage can only be corrected under the provisions of Section 12, Clause (2) of the Court-Fees Act. The learned Munsiff referred to Venkatasubba Reddi V/s. Ramadas Reddi (1946) 1 M.L.J. 459 but in dealing with the facts of that case Happell, J., observed: It is clear from what the District Munsiff himself has said that he reserved the question of the correctness of the court-fee paid for decision at a later stage and that he did not apply his mind to-and decide the question at the time when the suit was registered.