J. Rameshwar Rao and another vs Narsing Rao and others

Syed Saadatulla Hussaini, J.—Heard both the Counsel.

The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit.

This revision arises against the order passes by the Subordinate Judge, Wanaparthy in I.A. No. 142/1994 in O.S. No. 34/1993, dated 16-2-1996 allowing the application filed by the respondents wherein it is contended by the respondents that the Subordinate Judge, Wanaparthy has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit basing on the plea that Section 16(2) of Civil Court Act (Act 14/1993) was amended and the amended Act came into force from 3-9-1993 raising the jurisdiction of Subordinate Courts over Rs. 50,000/- and the suit being filed on 21-12-1993 after amendment of the Act, the Subordinate Judge has no pecuniary jurisdiction and the District Munsifs Court has got pecuniary jurisdiction.

The petitioners have filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining me respondents and their representatives from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of agricultural lands and also from felling the trees.

The undisputed facts are that the petitioners have valued the lands at Rs. 2,000/-and the trees therein at Rs. 49,139/-. While valuing in the plaint, a copy of which has been furnished in the material papers during the course of arguments, it is stated in para 10(i), the petitioners have valued the relief so far in respect of perpetual injunction, at Rs.2,000/- notionally and paid the Court fee of Rs. 186/- u/s 26(c) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 and in para 10(ii), the petitioners have valued the relief so far in respect of felling of trees, at Rs.49,130/-and paid Court fee of Rs. 1,586/- u/s 24 of the Act.

As such, he submits that there is genuine mistake and the same mistake was not detected at the time of filing of the suit and also by the Court while the suit was numbered.

It is admitted by both the Counsel that Section 24 of the Act has no application in this case; the Court fee paid by the petitioners on half of the value of the trees, is also incorrect, but the correct Section which is applicable to the case, is only 26(c) of the Act.

As there is no dispute with regard to the above submissions, even if we take the value of the trees as Rs. 49,130/- as given in the plaint and Court fee is paid together with the value of the lands on Rs. 2,000/-, the value of the suit would be over Rs. 50,000/-. If the value of the suit is Rs. 50,000/- and above, by virtue of the amendment Act 14/ 1983, the Subordinate Judge''s Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the basis of pecuniary jurisdiction; but the feet remains is that the petitioners having paid the Court fee under the incorrect provision of law in a situation like this where the Lower Court has committed an error in calculating the Court fee, this Court has -to direct the petitioners to pay the proper Court fee u/s 26(c) of the Act and proceed with the case.

As the Lower Court has committed error in law in improperly construing the provisions of the Court fee Act in calculating the proper Court fee on the basis of the valuation of the suit, I set aside the order passed by the Lower Court and remand the matter back to the Court, to collect the proper Court fee from the petitioners on the basis of the value of the trees at Rs. 49,130/- u/s 26(c) of the Act and proceed with the suit. The petitioners shall pay the deficit Court fee in the Trial Court.

However, the learned senior Counsel Mr. Malla Reddy submits that the respondents-defendants will be deprived of raising the plea on the value of the suit; as such, this order will act prejudicial to the interests of the respondents.

The above such plea is not sustainable - for the respondents-defendants are always at liberty to raise the plea of jurisdiction on the basis of the value of the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction and u/s 11(2) of the A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, the respondents-defendants can raise the plea that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or the Court fee paid is not sufficient and the Court will decide the issue as indicated therein u/s 11(2) of the Act.

In the view what I have held above, this C.R.P. is allowed. No costs.