Radha Kishan Munda vs Mannu Lal Sahu

U.C. Maheshwari, Judge

He is heard on the question of admission.The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 19.7.12 (Annex.P/6) passed by the Addl. District Judge (FTC) Pipariya in COS No.2-A/12 (old No.32-A/10) whereby allowing the application of the respondent filed under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC, the petitioner has been directed to pay the ad-valorum court fees on the valuation of entire sum of the alleged document (Chitthi Rugga) dated 25.9.09, as alleged executed by the respondent in favor of the petitioner accepting the liability to pay the sum of Rs.2,20,000/-.

Petitioner''s counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order as well as the averments of the petition argued that he has not filed the suit for recovery of the alleged sum of Rs.2,20,000/-of the aforesaid Rugga but has filed the suit for decree of appropriate direction to the respondent to comply the terms and condition of the aforesaid Rugga and, in such premises, the ad-valorum court fees on the valuation of aforesaid sum is not required in the matter. The suit is entertainable on the basis of fixed court fees which has been paid by the petitioner on the suit.

Keeping in view the aforesaid arguments, I have carefully gone through the record including the averments of the plaint. It is apparent from the plaint that the aforesaid Rugga dated 25.9.09 was executed by the respondent/ defendant in favor of the petitioner by accepting the liability to pay Rs.2,20,000/-. When such amount was not paid as per terms of the same then after giving the demand notice the suit has been filed by the plaintiff to enforce the aforesaid Rugga. In view of such pleadings, it is apparent that the plaintiff, by way of the suit wants to recover Rs.2,20,000/-on the basis of Rugga. So, in such premises, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prashad and Others, , the petitioner/plaintiff cannot escape from the liability to pay the ad-valorum court fees on the valuation of the sum which is to be recovered by him from the respondent by executing the aforesaid Rugga.

In view of the aforesaid, I have not found any perversity, illegality or anything against the propriety of the law in the order impugned even for admitting or issuing any notice to the respondent. Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed.

However, considering the oral prayer of the petitioner''s counsel, petitioner is extended period of two months from today to pay the requisite deficit court fees on the impugned plaint before the trial court, failing which such suit shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the bench. The petition is dismissed as indicated above.