P RAMA RAO Vs. SRIKAKULAM MUNICIPALITY
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)Heard the counsel appearing for both sides. The facts which are not at all in dispute are that the revision petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) filed the suit for the following reliefs :
(a) for a declaration that the proceedings of the defendant in RC.No. 3775/82/E2 dt. 3-5-89 is arbitrary, illegal and capricious and liable to be set aside;
(b) for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to get the remaining portion of the work of the tender to be done by the plaintiff only;
(2.)Admittedly, the plaintiff was the contractor for the construction of shopping complex being the lowest tenderer and alleging that the plaintiff failed to complete the work in time, under the impugned proceedings, the respondent-Municipality cancelled the contract, which was in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the suit for two reliefs :
(a) for a declaration that the proceedings cancelling the contract are arbitrary, illegal and capricious;
(b) for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent-Municipality to get the remaining portion of the work done by the plaintiff. While so, the plaintiff valued the relief of declaration under S. 24(d) of the A.P. Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (in brief 'the Act1) at Rs.500.00 and valued the relief of mandatory injunction at Rs. 200/ -. Since the defendant took an objection regarding court-fee, the matter was heard and the learned District Munsif as per his judgment dated 14-9-1990 returned the plaint for presentation in a proper court holding that the work involved in the contract in question is worth lakhs of rupees, exceeding the original jurisdiction of the said court. Of course, while returning the plaint, the learned District Munsif did not say anything regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the court-fee paid for the 2nd relief, namely on the mandatory injunction. Aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiff approached the District Court in C.M.A. No. 44 of 1990, which was dismissed as per judgment dt. 30-11-90 confirming in toto the order of the trial judge. Aggrieved of the said order, the plaintiff filed this revision.
(3.)The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the orders of the courts below are erroneous, and the first relief prayed for is incapable of valuation as laid down under Section 24(d) of the Act, as the valuation given in the plaint is correct. On the contrary, Sri Venkatanarayana, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the total value of the contract is Rs. 7,84,958.60 Ps, out of which by the date of cancellation of the contract, Rs. 2,00,000.00worth was already performed leaving the balance of the work to be executed and consequently, court-fee has to be paid on Rs. 5,84,958.60 Ps., and the trial court namely the Principal District Munsif Court, has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the said magnitude. To substantiate his contention, Sri Venkatanarayana very strongly relied upon the decision in A.P.S.E. Board v. K.R. Reddy, AIR 1977 AP 200.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.