BAGRAWAT Vs. MEHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, who was directed to pay the ad valorem Court-fee as per the sale consideration in the sale deed, has challenged the impugned order on the ground that in a suit for declaration challenging the legality of the sale deed, plaintiff is not required to pay ad valorem Court- fee on the sale price. Plaintiff (now petitioner) filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated January 22, 1974, executed by his father in favour of the respondent No. 2, is without legal necessity, without consideration and against the interest of the joint Hindu family property, therefore it is invalid, wrong and illegal and not binding on his rights.

(2.) THREE applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code were filed, which were disposed of vide single order, under challenge, and the plaintiff was directed to pay the ad valorem Court-fee.

(3.) TO meet this argument, Sh. L.N. Verma, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that vide impugned order trial Court has simply allowed time to the petitioner to make up deficiency in the Court-fee. It is an interim order. In case, the order is not complied with the plaint would be rejected and order of rejection of plaint would have the force of decree which is appealable. Regarding the maintainability of the revision, the learned counsel has also placed reliance upon Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and others, 1973 PLJ 686. It was held by the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court that no appeal will lie against the decision on the question of adequacy of Court-fee unless the question of Court-fee involves also the question of jurisdiction of the Court. It was a case where no question of jurisdiction was involved, therefore, revision was not maintainable. The facts of the case in hand are totally different. Here the plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned order whereby he has been directed to pay the ad valorem Court-fee, therefore, he has challenged it. As such, the revision petition is maintainable.