Manoj Misra, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts which could be elicited from the record are that the respondent no. 1 instituted O.S. No.516 of 2014 against the petitioners and others. In the said suit, an application for seeking temporary injunction was filed. In the meantime, the defendant filed objection/ written statement taking, inter alia, a plea that the suit was under valued and the Court fee paid was deficient. An application 59C2 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff that his prayer for temporary injunction be considered first and thereafter the issue in respect of valuation and payment of Court fee be decided. The said application 59C2 was rejected, vide order dated 15.7.2016, by the Civil Judge (SD), Etah and the case was directed to be listed for consideration of the issue pertaining to valuation and payment of Court fee. Against the order dated 15.7.2016, the plaintiff-respondents filed Revision no. 39 of 2016 which has been allowed by the District and Sessions Judge, Etah by order dated 30.8.2016. While allowing the civil revision, the revisional court held that there is no bar on consideration of the prayer for interim relief without deciding the issues pertaining to valuation and payment of Court fee. Accordingly, the court below was directed to dispose of the application relating to interim relief first and thereafter decide issues relating to valuation and Court fee as preliminary issues as per sub section (4) of section 6 of the Court Fees Act. It is this order dated 30.8.2016 which is impugned in the present petition.
(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the court below has misinterpreted sub section (4) of section 6 of the Court Fees Act which provides that whenever a question of proper amount of Court fee payable is raised otherwise than under sub section (3), the court shall decide such question before proceeding with any other issue. It has been submitted that the mandate contained under sub section (4) of section 6 has been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Arun Kumar Tiwari v. Smt. Deepa Sharma and others; 2006 (100) RD 427 wherein this Court has held that whenever a serious challenge is made to the jurisdiction of the Court as well as the valuation of the suit and sufficiency of the Court fee or to the maintainability of the suit, then if there appears prima facie some substance in those pleas, the proper procedure for the Court is to first decide these issues and then to decide the injunction application and other matters. It has been submitted that in the instant case as issues with regard to insufficiency of Court fee and valuation of the suit were framed, the trial court was well within its jurisdiction in deferring consideration of the interim injunction application and directing hearing on the issues in respect of valuation of the suit and the Court fee paid thereon. Therefore, the revisional court committed manifest error of law by interfering with the order of the trial court.;