- (1.) THIS is a plaintiff' s revision directed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Azamgarh, dated 4th February, 1975:
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff, claiming to be a partner of the dafendant-firm Indian Chemical Co. having its office in Mohalla malik Tehirpura; Maunath Bhanjan district Azamgarh, filed a suit against the Frm and remaining defendants praying for the following reliefs :- (a) That by granting the decree of dissolution of partnership of the firm defendant No. 1 defendant No. 2 or any other defendant who may be found liable be ordered to render the account of the capital profit and loss of the firm from 1963 right upto this day and on accounting the plaintiffs share of capital and profit to the extent of one third be got recovered from defendant No. 2 or any other defendant who may be found to be liable. (b) THE assets of the firm as disclosed in list A be partitioned and one third share of the plaintiff be separated and if the articles of the firm are found missing a money decree for the same in respect of the plaintiff' s share be passed against all or any of the defendants Nos. 2 to 5. (c) That a vakil receiver be appointed to carry out the accounting and partition of the assets of the firm after taking the assets of the firm in his possession valued at Rs. 200/-. ......................" THE other reliefs prayed for are not relevant for the purposes of this revision. It was stated in paragraph 18 of the plaint that, " THE valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction is fixed to be Rupees 15,000/- approximately for relief (a) and Rs. 33,000/- for relief (b) and Rs. 200/-for relief (c) because it is incapable of valuation; total valuation is Rs. 48,200/-, and on relief (a) court fee of Rs. 1532.50 is being paid at present and if higher amount becomes due to the plaintiff on accounting the plaintiff will pay court fee on that amount after decree. On relief (b) the court fee of Rs. 997.50 is being paid on Rs. 8250/- one fourth valuation of the said relief. On relief (c) a court fee of Rs. 22.50 is being paid. Total court fee Rs. 2552.50 is being paid." THE suit was instituted on the 11th September, 1974. An application for amendment of paragraph 18 of the plaint was made on the 11th November, 1974 in pursuance of the order of the court dated 29th October, 1974. On the 26th November, 1974, the trial court passed an order to the effect that according to S. 7 (iv) (b) of the Court Fees Act the plaintiff was required to value the suit for accounts at the approximate sum due to him and this fact had to be mentioned in the plaint. Since the proposed amendment was not in accordance with the court' s order dated 29th October, 1974. this application for amendment was rejected. On the 10th December, 1974, the plaintiff presented another application for amendment of the plaint. Paragraph 18 of the plaint was sought to be substituted by means of this application in the following terms: " 18. That for purposes of jurisdiction relief (a) of the plaint is valued at Rupees 20,000/- only, the relief (b) is valued at l/3rd of the total value of the assets as mentioned at the foot of the plaint i.e. l/3rd of Rs. 99,000/- only which is Rupees 33,000/- only. THE relief (c) for purposes of jurisdiction is valued at Rupees 200/- only. THE total value for purposes of jurisdiction is therefore Rs. 53,200/- only. Since the amount due to the plaintiff can only be ascertained after the accounts have been rendered and the plaintiff is not aware of approximate sum due to him at the date of suit, the plaintiff values relief (a) for purposes of court-fee under S. 7 (iv) (b) of the Court Fees Act at Rs. 20,000/-only. If on the account, the plaintiff is found entitled to a higher sum he shall pay the necessary court fee thereon. Again for purposes of court fee the relief (b) is valued at l/4th of the Rupees 33,000/- i.e. at Rs. 8,250.00 only and relief (c) is valued at Rs. 200.00." Objections were filed to the amendment sought and to the valuation given in the plaint and the court-fee paid. On the 10th February, 1975, another application for amendment was made and it was prayed that after the words " 20,000/- only" used in the said para 18, the words " approximate sum due to the plaintiff" be added. By means of the order challenged in this revision, the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint the objection filed by respondent No. 2, who figured as defendant No. 2, the application made for dismissing the suit for non-compliance with the order of the court and the objection filed by the plaintiff to the above-mentioned application of the defendant were disposed of by the trial court. The trial court by means of the order under revision held that the plaint was not liable to be rejected for non-compliance of its order dated 29th October, 1974 or 26th November 1974. It may be mentioned here that along with the plaint on the date of the institution of the suit, the plaintiff had filed a list of documents on which he proposed to rely in support of his claim and one such document mentioned was an uncertified copy of the assessment order of the Wealth Tax Officer, A Ward, Azamgarh dated 15th September, 1973 for the year 1973-74. The assessment order disclosed the name of the assessee as that of Mohd. Ajmal, the plaintiff C/o Indian Chemical Co., Mau, Azamgarh. The assessment order also disclosed that the assessee was assessed to have a capital in the Indian Chemical Co. to the tune of Rs. 86,283/-. In support of his claim that the plaintiff had not valued his claim and had paid insufficient court-fee, on behalf of the defendant-respondent No. 2 reliance was placed on the uncertified copy of the abovementioned assessment order which showed that in the assessment year 1973-74 the taxable wealth of the plaintiff included Rs. 86,283 as his capital in the Indian Chemical Co. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was contended that this amount had been got included by the defendant-respondent No. 2 himself and it should not be taken as the basis for the valuation of his share on the date of the filing of the suit which was 11th September, 1974. The trial court held that it had examined the plaint as well as the copy of the assessment order mentioned above and found that there was nothing at that stage to show that the assessment had been done at the instance of defendant No. 2. It held that if the assessment order was considered on its face value, it was clear that till the end of the financial year 1972-73 the plaintiff had a capital of Rs. 86,283/- in the Indian Chemical Co. It further held that there was at that stage nothing on record and there was no allegation to show less in the Indian Chemical Co. since the said assessment. The learned Civil Judge took the view that since the document had been relied upon by the plaintiff himself, initially he should have valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at the aforesaid amount of Rs. 86,283/- for the purpose of accounting and Rs. 33,000/- for the purpose of partition, total Rs. 1,19,283/- and should have paid court fee for the relief of dissolution under Art. 17 (vii) of Schedule 2 of the Court Fees Act. The plaintiff was directed to correct the valuation of the plaint accordingly by moving proper amendment application within a week failing which the plaint shall stand rejected. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff has come to this Court.
(3.) A preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the revision, and it was contended that in view of S. 12 (i) of the Court Fees Act, the decision of the trial court on the question relating to valuation was final and could not be questioned by means of a Civil revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not find the preliminary objection sustainable. The court has clearly ordered that if the valuation is not corrected in accordance with the order challenged by means of the revision and court fee paid on the corrected valuation, the plaint shall stand rejected. The court consequently has declined to proceed to try the suit unless its order is carried out: A learned single judge of this Court In Lala Ram Babu v. Lala Ramesh Chandra (1957 All LJ 53) held that, " The finality of the decision relating to valuation, however, does not take away the power of the High Court to interfere in exercise of its power under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided the decision of the court below amounted to a case decided." The Supreme Court in Nemi Chand v. The Edward Mills Co. Ltd. (AIR 1953 SC 28) reconciled the provisions of the Court Fees Act with the Code of Civil Procedure and held that, (at p. 32). " Perhaps it may be possible to reconcile the provisions of the two statutes by holding that the finality declared by Section 12 of the Court Fees Act means that the parties cannot impugn such a decision by preferring an appeal but that it does not confer on such decisions a complete immunity from examination in a higher Court. In other words, S. 12 when it says that such a decision shall be final between the parties only makes the decision of the Court on a question of court-fee non-appealable and places it on the same footing as other interlocutory non-appealable orders under the Code and it does no more than that. If a decision under S. 12 is reached by assuming jurisdiction which the Court does not possess or without observing the formalities which are prescribed for reaching such a decision, the order obviously would be revisable by the High Court in the exercise of revisional powers. Similarly, when a party thinking that a decision under S. 12 is palpably wrong takes the risk of his plaint being rejected or suit dismissed and then appeals from the order rejecting the plaint or from the decree dismissing the suit but not from the decision on the question of court-fee, then it is open to him to challenge the interlocutory order even on the question of court-fee made in the suit or appeal. The word ' finality' construed in the limited sense in which it is often used in statutes means that no appeal lies from an order of this character as such and it means no more than that." Having disposed of the preliminary objection, I shall now proceed to consider the revision on merits.;