Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE following substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal: Whether the suit could have been dismissed for want of appropriate Court fee?
(2.) THE plaintiff -appellants filed a suit for directing the defendants to give 52500 bricks to the plaintiffs in the year 1993 -94, as per the lease deed dated 3.8.1989. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants entered into lease deed with the plaintiffs for taking earth for five years i.e. from 2.8.1989 to 1.8.1994 for manufacturing of bricks. It was agreed that in consideration of lease, 52,500 bricks were to be given by the defendants to the plaintiffs per annum. It was also agreed that after expiry of five years, the possession would be delivered back to the plaintiffs and during this period of five years, the defendants would be entitled to take earth upto 4 feet. The defendants started their brick kiln and they were required to give 52500 bricks to the plaintiffs. The defendants gave the bricks for the year 1991 -92 but did not supply the bricks to the plaintiffs for the year 1993 -1994. Consequently, the present suit for directing the defendants to give the bricks was filed. In the written statement, the defendants admitted the execution of the lease deed as well as the terms and conditions thereof. But the defendants pleaded that they have paid the entire consideration to the plaintiffs.
(3.) THE learned trial Court returned a finding that in terms of the lease deed Exhibit P -1, the plaintiffs are entitled to 52,500 bricks in the year 1993 -94, but under issue No. 4, it returned a finding that the price of the bricks was Rs. 1,300/ - to Rs. 1,400/ - per thousands and therefore, the plaintiffs were required to affix the Court fee. Since the Court fee was not paid in terms of the order dated 4.3.1999, the suit was dismissed. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court, were affirmed in appeal by the learned first Appellate Court.;