- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The instant petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 24/05/2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 41/2012 titled as Pawan Sharma versus J.V.V.N.L. & Ors, whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the defendant/respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and directed the plaintiff/petitioners to pay the court fee on the valuation of the suit to be Rs.30,00,000/-, within two months, failing which the suit shall be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
(3.) Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed the civil suit before the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur with the averment that on 22/11/2010, the petitioner was going from Jagatpura to Chetawala and when he reached to Samod at about 5.00 P.M. then a wire of 11000 KV line suddenly broke and fell down on him, resultantly he sustained serious injuries and his motor cycle was badly damaged. It is also stated that said accident has occurred due to negligence of the department and prayed for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest from the defendant/respondents. During pendency of the suit, the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC on 08/05/2017 stating therein that the suit has been filed on insufficient court fees and prayed to reject the same. The plaintiff/petitioner opposed the application by filing reply thereto, stating therein that the court fees has been paid under Section 45 of Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1961, as such the court fees is sufficient and prayed to dismiss the application filed by the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the defendant/respondents and directed the plaintiff/petitioner to pay the court fee as stated hereinabove. Learned trial Court while passing the impugned order observed that the plaintiff has filed the suit for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and the suit has not been filed under Fatal Accidents Act , therefore the Court fees of Rs.300/- paid by the plaintiff, is insufficient. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous and bad in the eye of law, as such the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. Relevant provisions of Section 20,21,45 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1961 are as under :- 20. Fee how reckoned:- The fee payable under this Act shall be determined or computed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, Chapter VI, Chapter VIII and Schedules I and II. 21. Suits for money:- In a suit for money (including a suit for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically), fee shall be computed on the amount claimed: Provided that in an action or suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act , 1855 (Central Act 13 of 1855) a fixed fee of rupees ten shall be payable on the plaint or the memorandum of appeal. 45. Suits not otherwise provided for:- In suits not otherwise provided for, fee shall be payable at the following rates, namely:-- Where the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute-- (i) is less than Its. 1000 Rupees ten, (ii) is not less than Rs.1,000 but does Rupees thirty, not exceed Rs.3,000 (iii) is not less than Rs. 3,000 and does Rupees one hundred. not exceed Rs. 5,000 (iv) exceeds Rs. 5,000 but does not Rupees two hundred. exceed Rs.10,000 (v) exceeds Rs. 10,000 Rupees three hundred. Admittedly the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner is not under the Fatal Accidents Act , 1955. Present suit is for compensation, therefore, the court fee shall be computed on the amount claimed in the suit, as provided in Schedule-I. To us, provisions of Section 45 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1961 are not applicable in the present suit. On consideration of submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the material made available on record and more particularly looking to the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court in support of the impugned order and the pleadings taken by the parties, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. In view of above, the stay application is also dismissed. ;