Prabeen Chandra Dutta and Another vs Mohammad Idris and Others

B.J. Jha, J.—The plaintiffs who are opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 in this application brought Title suit 217 of 1964 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Purnea, for declaration of their title in respect of Schedule A properties and also for a declaration of their title in respect of compensation mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint. Originally two declaratory court-fees were paid. Objection was raised by the defendants to the sufficiency of the Court-fee stamps. The Court below, after taking evidence on the issue as to whether the Court-fee paid was sufficient or not, came to the conclusion that the Court-fee paid by the plaintiffs was sufficient.

When the matter came before the Stamp Reporter, he questioned the maintainability of the civil revision application at the instance of the defendants petitioners. The matter was placed before the learned Registrar who thought it proper that the question of maintainability of the civil revision be placed before the Bench at the time of admission.

At the time of hearing of the application, learned Counsel for the opposite party raised a preliminary point in the case that the defendants have got no locus standi to file this Civil revision application, and in support of his contention, he referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramkhelawan Sahu Vs. Bir Surendra Sahi and Others, and the Supreme Court decision in Sri Ratnavaramaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla, , which had been referred to in his report by the Stamp Reporter. In mv opinion, the objection taken by the Stamp Reporter as well as the preliminary point raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party is well founded and must be accepted.

The Full Bench in the case of Ramkhelawan Sahu has observed as follows :--

"The defendant may contend that the Court-fee paid is insufficient with a view to preventing the suit from being tried, but in arguing his contentions the defendant is really acting as a common informer. The Crown may be grateful for his assistance, but it is not a matter which really concerns the defendant. The Court is doing nothing wrong in hearing the contentions of the common informer, but in deciding the question of Court-fee he is deciding an issue not as between the plaintiff and the defendant wherein his decision both on law and fact is not subject to revision, but is deciding an issue as between the Crown and the plaintiff; and should his decision be adverse to the plaintiff, it amounts to a decision to refuse to exercise his jurisdiction to try the issues as between the plaintiff and the defendant. His decisions in such a case is subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Where however the decision is in favour of the plaintiff, it is not open to the defendant to apply to the Court for revision; (see the cases collected in Raghunandan Gir Vs. Deoraj Gir and Another, , Raghunandan Gir v. Deoraj Gir at p. 10 (of Pat LT) = (at p. 86 of AIR)) for in the first place he is not a party to the dispute between the Crown and the plaintiff, secondly, he has a remedy, should the decision on merits be against him, in bringing the matter of the duty to the notice of the Appellate Court u/s 12, Court-fees Act; and thirdly and most important, as between the plaintiff and the defendant the trial Court has hot refused to exercise its jurisdiction to decide the case on the merits."

The view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkhelawan Sahu finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Ratnavaramaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla, wherein it has been observed as follows :--

"We fail to appreciate what grievance the defendant can make by seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate Court-fee on his plaint. Whether proper Court-fee is paid on a plaint is primary a question between the plaintiff and the State. How by an order relating to the adequacy of the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may feel aggrieved, it is difficult to appreciate. Again the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court u/s 115 of the CPC is strictly conditioned by Clauses fa) to (c) thereof and may be invoked on the ground of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Subordinate Court or assumption of jurisdiction which the Court does not possess or on the ground that the Court has acted Illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The defendant who may believe and even honestly that proper Court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court fee payable on the plaint."

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decisions, it is quite clear that the defendants have got no locus standi to move this Court in revision u/s 115 of the CPC when the court-fee matter has been decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Nemi Chand and Another Vs. The Edward Mills Co. Ltd. and Another, . In that case the question that came before the Supreme Court for consideration was whether the finality declared by Section 12 of the Court fees Act, 1870 is limited only to the question of valuation, pure and simple, or relates to the category under which certain suit falls. The order of the trial Court demanding ad valorem Court-fee was challenged by the plaintiffs in that suit, and they moved the superior Court against the order of the trial Court, and in that connection, the Supreme Court held that the finality declared by Section 12 is limited to the question of valuation, pure and simple, and does not relate to the category under which a certain suit falls. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that when the question of category under which Court-fee had to be paid was involved in the case, the defendants had a right to move the superior Court. The decision relied upon by him, however, does not support this contention. There is nothing in the decision to show that in such a case the defendants have got any locus standi. The Supreme Court in Sri Ratnavaramaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla, has clearly laid down that in the matter of court-fee whether relating to the quantum of valuation of the suit or category under which it falls the defendant has got no locus stand to move the superior Court against the order of the Court below in revision if the decision is in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, in my opinion, the defendants petitioners have got no locus standi to move this Court in revision against the order of the Court below, which has held that the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is sufficient, and the application filed in this Court is misconceived.

For the reasons stated above, the application fails and is dismissed with cost, hearing fee Rs. 55.