Ajit Singh vs Public Motor Service and Others

J.N. Wazir, C.J.—This revision application is directed against an order of the District Judge Jammu dated 26th April, 1961 overruling the

objection of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants Appellants should pay ad valorem court-fees on the decretal amount in appeal.

I have perused the order passed by the District Judge. He has relied on a Division Bench ruling of this Court Ahad Mir v. Mahda Bhat AIR

1960 J & K 89 and has held that the Defendants need not pay ad valorem court-fees on the decretal amount which they want to get rid of in

appeal. The learned District Judge has not cared to read the ruling which he has cited in his judgment. Paragraph 12 of the aforesaid ruling deals

with this point and it reads as under:

There is a well-established and fundamental difference between the valuation of an appeal for purposes of court-fees and that for purposes of

jurisdiction. For purposes of court-fees, it is the subject-matter of the appeal that has to be considered, but for purposes of jurisdiction it is the

value of the suit that has to be taken into account. The effect of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, so far as an accounts suit is concerned, is that

the value given in the plaint is also the value for purposes of jurisdiction.

This jurisdictional value will equally apply to an appeal. But the value of an appeal for purposes of court-fees may be different. That circumstance

will not have the effect of altering the value of the appeal for purposes of jurisdiction. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the value for purposes of

jurisdiction in respect of an appeal will depend upon the value of the appeal for purposes of court-fees. The true effect and purpose of Section 8 of

the Suits Valuation Act is to fix the same value for purposes of jurisdiction in respect of the suit as well as the appeal.

In Khem Raj v. Hem Raj AIR 1956 J & K 35 this point has been clearly dealt with and it has been held that Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees

Act applies to suits where the dispute relates to a right to taking of accounts and does not apply to appeals where a decree for a definite amount is

prayed for or is challenged. When a Plaintiff brings a suit for accounts he cannot know what the result of the accounts is likely to be and, therefore,

u/s 7(iv)(f) he has a right to place his own value on the relief claimed but this right to place his own value on the relief is limited to cases where the

relief sought is one for accounts. But an appeal arising from such a suit may not fall u/s 7(iv)(f), Court-fees Act. There may be a final decree passed

for a definite amount against one of the parties and the appeal from such a decree will not be governed by Section 7(iv)(f). There the Appellant if

he wants to get rid of the decretal amount will have to pay ad valorem court-fees. The dispute in appeal would no longer be of taking of accounts

but would relate to a definite sum of money which is decreed against the Appellant. The provision of the Court-fees Act applicable in such case

would be the 1st Article of the 1st Schedule of the Court-fees Act under which ad valorem court-fee on the decretal amount will have to be paid

by the Appellant as he wants the appellate Court to set aside that decree.

In the present case the Plaintiff had brought a suit for accounts and the trial Court after going through the accounts has found a certain amount due

from the Defendants. The Defendants want to set rid of that decretal amount and to get the suit dismissed. Under these circumstances the court-

fees payable by the Defendants Respondents will be ad valorem court-fees on the amount for which a decree has been passed against them. The

lower appellate Court was, therefore, in error in holding that the Defendants will have to pay court-fees not on the decretal amount but on the value

fixed by the Plaintiffs for their relief in the Court of first instance. This revision application is accordingly allowed and the order of the lower

appellate court is vacated. The case will be sent back to the lower appellate Court with the direction that it will allow some time to the Defendants

Respondents to make up the deficiency in court-fees and if they do so the appeal be heard and disposed of in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.