GROUNDNUT EXTRACTIONS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter comes up before me for confirmation of the Report of the Taxing Master of this Court dated July 80, 1973. The Report has bean made by the Taxing Master pursuant to the reference made under Section 5 of the Bombay Court -fees Act, 1959 by Nain J. on June 12, 1973.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS , a representative association of Groundnut Extraction Exporters filed the above suit as an interpleader suit under the provisions of Order XXXV of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that a sum of Rs. 1,10,217.74P was due and payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants No. 3 by way of export development assistance. In respect of the said debt, it was claimed by defendants No. 1 that they had a lien and the amount was payable to them. The defendants No. 2 assorted their claim to the said amour t by virtue of an order of attachment before judgment in their favour. The defendants No. 2 had instituted a suit against defendants No. 3 in the Court of the subordinate Judge at Vijayanagaram for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 from defendants No. 8. In the said suit they applied for and obtained a prohibitory order on December 18, 1971, inter alia prohibiting the plaintiffs from paying the said amounts to defendants No. 3 or to any other person. The other allegations made in the said interpleader suit need not be gone into. It is however, necessary to observe that in paragraph 8 of the plaint the plaintiffs claim that there is no collusion between the plaintiffs and any of the defendants in respect of the subject -matter of the suit. The plaintiffs further state in the said paragraph that they have no claim over the said sum of Rs. 1,41,097.74P save and except for their charges and costs.

(3.) THE Taxing Master has taken the view that a plaintiff in an interpleader suit does not seek to prevent any monetary loss being caused to him. According to the Taxing Master, payment of Court -foes in an interpleader suit is not governed by Article 7 of Schedule I of the Court -fees Act, but comes within the preview of Article 23(f) of Schedule II of the Bombay Court -fees Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act): The Taxing Master therefore made findings in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the fixed Court -fees of Rs. 30 was payable under the provisions of Article 23(f) of Schedule II of the Act. The plaintiffs claim in view of the Report of the Taxing Master that the amount of Court -fee paid in excess of Rs. 80 should be directed to be refunded to them. The plaintiffs also seek a declaration under Rule 4 of Order XXXV of the Code of Civil Procedure to the effect that the plaintiffs are discharged from all liability to the defendants. The plaintiffs also pray that the provisions be made for costs of the plaintiffs and further that the plaintiffs be dismissed from the suit. These directions wore prayed for orally by the plaintiffs in course of the hearing of the matter today. Normally having regard to the provisions of Rule 4 of Order XXXV, such directions can be given by the Court only at the first hearing of the suit. Whatever the expression 'first hearing' might mean, it undoubtedly connotes the hearing of the suit. As the suit was not on Board for hearing and final disposal I was not inclined to entertain the application of Shri Doctor, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs for the aforesaid directions. However, the learned Counsel for all the parties agreed to have the matter placed on Board by consent and thus induced mo to entertain plaintiffs' application for the aforesaid directions.