ABDUL GANI ABDUL KARIM MANSURI Vs. GULAMNABI ABDUL KARIM VOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 576 of 1982 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), . Baroda for a declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased one ambassador car bearing No. GJU 9350 for Rs. 40,000/-on 7-4-1982 from the first opponent. The possession of the car was also handed over to him. In spite of repeated requests the defendant did not part with the registration book in respect of the said car; and he is doing so as he wants to sell the said car to some one else. The petitioner paid court fees of Rs. 30/- on the plaint on the basis that it is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The dispute with respect to payment of court fees was referred to the Court fee Inspector under Section 12 of the Bombay Court-fees Act. After considering his report, the learned trial Judge directed the plaintiff to pay requisite court-fee of Rs.

(2.) ,770/- on the plaint. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed this revision application. 2. The Inspecting Officer in his report has pointed out that the suit is for moveable property and as the market value of the car was Rs. 40,000/- the court fee was required to be paid according to the market value as per the provisions of Section 6 (iii) of the Bombay Court-fees Act. He also pointed out in the alternative that the suit is filed under Article 7 of Schedule I to the Bombay Court-fees Act, inasmuch as the suit is filed to obtain substantive relief which is capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain and/or prevention of monetary loss. In support of this view, he relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Indumati Chimahlal v. Union of India 71 BLR page 340 and a decision of this Court reported in Premchand Gordhandas Valia v. The Rajpipla Sahakari Bank Ltd., 15 GLT 221. Nothing was pointed out to the learned trial Judge to show that the view taken by the Inspecting Officer was not correct. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner could not point out how the order passed by the learned trial Judge is in any manner erroneous. The suit would clearly fall, for the purpose of court fees, under Article 7 of Schedule I to the Bombay Court-fees Act. Looking to the averments made in the plaint, it clearly appears that the plaintiff is trying to avoid monetary loss which might arise as a result of the defendant's apprehended action of selling away the car to some one else and handing over the registration book to him.