- (1.) This petition assails the order dated 28.04.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, dismissing the application filed by the defendants-petitioners (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioners') under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on account of non-payment of ad valorem Court fee.
(2.) At the very outset, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition is not maintainable, as the question with regard to payment of the Court fee is between the plaintiff and the State.
(3.) Having heard the rival contentions, I find myself in agreement with the argument raised by learned counsel for respondent No.1. The Court Fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and it is not a handle given to the defendants for using it on the plaintiff in order to crush his right merely on the ground that he has paid insufficient Court fee. The dispute with regard to the Court fee is a dispute between the plaintiff and the State. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Sri Rathnavarmaraja vs. Smt. Vimla, 1961 AIR(SC) 1299, wherein it was observed 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 far 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..........";