Ravipal vs Smt. Mumtaz begum and Others

N.K. Agarwal, J.—Civil Revision Nos. 49/2007 and 50/2007 arise out of the same order i.e. order dated 26-12-2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2006 by Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Bemetara, District Durg therefore, both the revisions are being disposed of by the common order.

The facts briefly stated are as under:

Non-applicant/Plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming relief of declaration, injunction and possession with regard to the suit land. The Defendants have filed their written statement. They have also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and contended that the suit is under valued; proper Court fee has not been paid and the suit is barred by limitation.

After hearing the parties, learned trial Court rejected the contentions of the Defendants with regard to Court fees and valuation, also held that the question of limitation as raised cannot be decided at this stage and the same shall be decided after recording evidence in the case.

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that as per Section 7(v)(d) of the Court Fees Act, 1970 (for short ''the Act'') where the land forms part of any estate paying revenue to Government but definite shape of such estate and is not separately assessed as above mentioned, the Court fee is payable on the market value of the land. In the instant case, the Plaintiffs had put the market value of the suit land as was prevailing in the year 1962, and, therefore, the valuation is per- se illegal. Consequently, the Court fee is not paid properly which also effects the jurisdiction of the Court and therefore, the same order deserves to be set aside.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the order impugned, in the considered opinion of this Court the revision preferred by the applicants are devoid of substance. So far as the provision contained in Section 7(v) of the Act is concerned, the same stands substituted by M.P. Act of 4/1976 by which Clause 7(v)(d) stands omitted and now there is no such clause in the Court fees Act, so far as the State of Chhattisgarh and State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned. Moreover, the case is covered u/s 7(v)(c) of the Court fees Act under which if the land is not assessed to land revenue, proper valuation would be twenty times of the land revenue worked out @ 2/- per acre and in this way, it cannot be said that Plaintiffs had under valued the suit or not paid the proper Court fee.

The Supreme Court in case of Sri Ratnavaramaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla, . has held that the question of Com fee is primarily the question between the Plaintiff and the State. 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. The Court fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the state and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of nature.

In view of foregoing the revisions being devoid of substance are liable to be and hereby dismissed.

So far as the question of limitation or any other question which may have been raised by the Defendants in their written statement, will certainly be decided by the trial Court after recording the evidence on its own merits in accordance with law.