ANEM SHIVA PARVATAMMA Vs. AKASAM BAYANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, calling upon the plaintiff to pay additional court -fee, amounting to Rs. 1864 -1 -0, and making it a condition precedent to the passing of a final decree.

(2.) THE plaintiff sued the defendant on the allegation that she had purchased the suit properties in the name of the defendant who is related to her, and that she was in possession in her own right as the purchaser of the equity of redemption. She made a further allegation that the defendant refused to execute a proper conveyance transferring the title to the plaintiff. The prayer in the suit was, therefore, for a direction to the defendant to execute a proper conveyance and also for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession. The relief for execution of the deed of conveyance and the one for injunction were respectively valued at Rs. 1000/ - and Rs. 1300/ -. The plaintiff however claimed an alternative relief in respect of the same properties which had been mortgaged to her and subject to which the equity of redemption had been purchased by the defendant. This alternative relief was valued, at Rs. 50,000/ - and court -fee was paid on this amount.

(3.) IT is first contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the lower court directing the plaintiff to pay deficit court -fee before she can apply for a final decree does not amount to a 'decree' as defined in Civil P. C., as it does not finally adjudicate any , dispute between parties. Any question relating to court -fee is essentially a matter between the plaintiff and the State. The Subordinate Judge's direction, it is contended, is therefore, an order against the plaintiff and does not amount to a decree passed in the suit as such. Furthermore, it does not, in terms, purport to be a 'decree'. On the other hand, it postpones the passing of a, decree and is contingent upon payment of additional court -fee as directed. A decree is said to be a preliminary decree when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be finally and completely disposed of. A decree can be said to be final only when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. The Order directing the payment of court -fee does not either dispose of the suit, or direct any further proceeding to be taken towards the disposal of the suit. It cannot therefore be regarded as a decree as defined in the Code; it can at best be regarded only as an interlocutory order attracting the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.