- (1.) This petition assails the order dated 17.08.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, whereby the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred as 'respondent No. 1) was directed to make good the deficiency of Court fee. Factual matrix of the case is that vide order dated 29.07.2009 passed by the trial Court, respondent No. 1 was asked to pay ad valorem Court fee on the value of the suit i.e. the sale deed under challenge. The said order was challenged before this Court in Civil Revision No. 4871 of 2009. This Court, vide order dated 11.01.2010, set aside the order dated 29.07.2009 and directed the trial Court to assess the impact of amended provisions of Court fee as applicable to the State of Haryana and permit to affix the Court fee in accordance with the same. Thereafter, the trial Court, while assessing the value of the suit property, directed respondent No. 1 to pay the Court fee as per the provisions of Section 7(v)(a)(c) of the Court Fee Act. The defendant No. 1-petitioner has challenged the said order by filing the present petition.
(2.) At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has contended that when the Court has directed to affix the Court fee as per provisions of the Court Fee Act, the revision is not maintainable.
(3.) To my mind, the question of court fee on the plaint is between the plaintiff and the State and the defendant has no right to move to the superior court by way of appeal or revision. Similar observations were made by the Apex Court in case Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt Vimla, 1961 AIR(SC) 1299 which reads as under:-- The Court-fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action. By recognising that the defendant was entitled to contest the valuation of the properties in dispute as if it were a matter in issue between him and the plaintiff and by entertaining petitions preferred by the defendant to the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction against the order adjudging court-fee payable on the plaint, all progress in the suit for the trial of the dispute on the merits has been effectively frustrated for nearly five years. We fail to appreciate what grievance the defendant can make by seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate court fee on his plaint. Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. How by an order relating to the adequacy of the court-fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may feel aggrieved, it is difficult to appreciate. Again, the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by cls. (a) to (c) thereof and may be invoked on the ground of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Subordinate Court or assumption of jurisdiction which the court does not possess or on the ground that the court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The defendant who may believe and even honestly that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior court by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint. But counsel for the defendant says that by Act 14 of 1955 enacted by the Madras Legislature which applied to the suit in question, the defendant has been invested with a right not only to contest in the trial court the issue whether adequate court-fee has been paid by the plaintiff, but also to move the High Court in revision if an order contrary to his submission is passed by the court. Reliance in support of that contention is placed upon sub-s. (2) of s. 12. That sub-section, in so for as it is material, provides: Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. If the court decides that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the court's decision and the deficit fee shall be paid.......... This view was followed by the Full Bench of this Court in case M/s. Arjan Motors v. Girdhara Singh and others, 1978 PunLJ 36 wherein it was observed the question of court fee cannot be agitated by the defendant in revision. Further the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Sri Rathnavarmaraja's case , was followed by this Court in the cases Madan Lal and another v. Smt. Lajwanti Devi and others, 1972 AIR(P&H) 146, Daulat Ram and another v. Parsini and another, 1973 PunLJ 534, Jagmohan Sharma v. Champa Lal and another, 1985 RLR 121 and Golden Tringle Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajkumari Sidhi Kumari and Ors., 2003 3 RCR(Civ) 209. Resultantly, this petition being not maintainable, is hereby dismissed.;