- (1.) The Punjab Wakf Board, appellant, filed a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Bhatinda, for a declaration that the decree in Civil Suit No. 11 of 19th February, 1973 passed on 2nd March, 1973, by Shri S.N. Aggarwal, Sub-Judge 3rd Class, Bhatinda, is illegal and was obtained by collusion, conspiracy and fraud and the same is, therefore, absolutely illegal, void and not binding on it, with the consequential relief of possession of the property described in the head-note of the plaint. Paragraph 37 of the plaint relates to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction and deserves to be reproduced here :- "That the value of the suit for declaration is as prescribed under the Court Fees Act is Rs. 19.50 and the value for the purposes of the consequential relief under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act is Rs. 6,00,000/-. Since the Court-fee prescribed by the Punjab Court Fees Act for suit for possession of Wakf/Public Wakf Property is Rs. 15/-, therefore, the higher Court-fee has been paid. The value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs)." It appears that, after the suit was instituted, the Reader of the Court made a report that the Court-fee paid on the plaint was deficient. On 26th February, 1975 the learned Sub-Judge passed an order in Punjabi, which, when rendered into English, is to the following effect :- "Present :- Counsel for the plaintiff. Suit be registered. Case to come up on 10th March, 1975 after compliance in view of the objections raised by the Reader."
(2.) On the next, date, i.e., 10th March, 1975, the order passed by the learned Sub-Judge in Punjabi, when rendered into English, is to the following effect :- "Present :- Counsel for the plaintiff. Summons be issued for the defendants for 17th April, 1975 and, by that date, the deficiency in Court-fee be made up." The suit thereafter came up before the learned Sub-Judge on different dates from 17th April, 1975 to 18th December, 1976. The orders recorded on all these dates concern the question whether or not service on the different defendants had been effected. In between, in pursuance of requests of the plaintiff, it was allowed to amend the plaint. The order dated 10th November, 1976 need be reproduced here and it is to the following effect :- "Present :- Counsel for the parties. Manadi charges/P.F./R.C. not paid by the plaintiff. The same be deposited within three days and then process be issued for 18th December, 1976 as per my previous order dated 30th October, 1976." On 18th December, 1976, the learned Sub-Judge took up the question whether or not proper Court-fee had been paid on the plaint and came to the conclusion that, since the value of the property, mentioned in the suit, was of Rs. 6,00,000/- ad valorem Court-fee thereon ought to have been paid by the plaintiff. He further proceeded to hold that the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff being Rs. 19.50 for declaration, Rs. 15/- only qua possession was deficient and rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) vide order of the said date. The plaintiff filed the present regular first appeal from the aforesaid order in this Court.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. I am of the view that the learned trial Court did not deal with the matter in accordance with law. When in its averments in paragraph 37 of the plaint, the appellant had explained how the valuation for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction had been worked out and why a Court-fee of Rs. 15/- only had been paid with regard to the relief sought for possession of the suit property, it was necessary for the trial Court to have adjudicated upon the question whether or not the valuation of the suit for purposes of Court-fee was proper. It could not abruptly hold that the Court-fee paid was deficient and proceed to reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code.;