- (1.) This appeal arises from an order passed by the High Court dismissing application u/s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the present appellant who was plaintiff in the suit.
(2.) On the basis of the plaint allegations, the trial court directed that the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee u/s. 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Fee Act, on the sum of Rs. 2,97,93,310.00. The appellant approached the High Court by way of Civil Revision Petition No. 677 of 1999. The learned Judge of the High Court by order made on 28.07.1999, came to the conclusion that the suit essentially being for relief of permanent injunction and not for recovery of the aforesaid amount, ad valorem court fee was not payable. The plaint allegations were taken note of in which the plaintiff merely averred that the aforesaid amount which was paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant unless returned, the latter had no right to interfere with the possession of the property leased by him to the plaintiff. In the operative part of the order of the learned Single Judge, it seems, at two places, there is omission of the word "not". The relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge holding in favour of the appellant that ad valorem court fee was not payable on the aforesaid amount, reads thus: "In prayer (b), what is sought for essentially is a permanent injunction. Though the relief prayed for involves peculiarly worded lengthy sentence, the plaintiff is not really seeking any decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,97,93,310.00. The plaintiff is contending that unless such amount is paid to him, the defendant has no right to interfere with the possession of the leased property. Hence it is not a claim for money. So, court fee is liable to be paid u/s. 20. (In the last sentence word 'not' seems to be an inadvertent omission.) Coming to prayer (d), it appears that the petitioner-plaintiff deposited certain amounts during the pendency of the suit and he is only seeking leave to withdraw the same and he is not seeking any decree for money. Therefore, the court fee is liable to be paid on the amount deposited of which the petitioner seeks withdrawal. The CRP is thus allowed. No costs." (In the last but one sentence, there seems to be omission of word 'not' between the words 'court fee' and 'is liable'.)
(3.) We have gone through the contents of the order of the learned Single Judge and we have also seen the memo of revision petition. The prayer made by the petitioner in the revision petition against demand of ad valorem court fee on the abovementioned amount, has clearly been allowed. It is also clear from the contents of the order of the learned Single Judge (quoted above) that he has construed the pleadings in the plaint to mean that there is a mention of the aforesaid amount as having been paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant and the said amount having not been returned, the plaintiff is entitled to remain in undisturbed possession of the leased property. After reading the entire order and the prayer made in the memo of revision petition, it is clear to us that the decision of the learned Single Judge is that no ad valorem court fee is payable on the aforesaid amount as no relief of recovery of the said amount has been claimed. Clearly no monetary decree has been sought by the plaintiff in the suit. In such circumstances, in the underlined portion of the order of the learned Single Judge (quoted above), there seems to be clearly omission of the word "not" in the two sentences. This mistake or omission in the order of the learned Single Judge made it necessary for the appellant to approach for necessary correction by application u/s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Court. Review petition could also have been filed for the purpose but the appellant filed the application u/s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;