Skip to content


N.V. Vakharia Vs. Behari Lal Batra and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana
Decided On
Reported inAIR1949P& H372
AppellantN.V. Vakharia
RespondentBehari Lal Batra and ors.
Excerpt:
.....stated that after the passing of this order the plaintiff asked for time to pay court-fee and time having been given he made good the court-fee before 28th may 1948 as is clear from the order of the learned judge dated 28th may 1948. 4. a revision has been filed against this order and i have heard mr......of as determined by the court-court-fee fees act, 1870.value for the purpose of for the purpose of suitsjurisdiction, valuation act, 1887, and thepunjab courts act, 1918, asvalued by the plaintiff inthe plaint subject to determination by the courtat any stage of the trial.the learned judge thought that as the plaintiff himself had shown that the amount of rs. 10,000 will be found due from the' defendant the value for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction should have been fixed at rb. 10,000 and he ordered accordingly. it may be stated that after the passing of this order the plaintiff asked for time to pay court-fee and time having been given he made good the court-fee before 28th may 1948 as is clear from the order of the learned judge dated 28th may 1948.4. a revision has been.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kapur, J.

1. This is a revision from the order of the learned Commercial Sub-Judge of Delhi passed in a suit for accounts.

2. The plaintiff in this case, Vakharia, brought a suit for rendition of accounts and valued the suit at Rs. 5100. In para. 7 of the plaint the plaintiff stated as follows:

That the plaintiff does not know the precise amount that will be found due to him upon a proper rendition of accounts and considers that a sum of about Rs. 10,000 will be found due to him on rendition of accounts.

An objection being taken by the defendant as to the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee a preliminary issue was raised in the following words: 'Is the plaint properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction?'

3. The learned Judge relied on a correction slip which relates to the manner of determining the value of the suit for the purpose specified in Section 9, Suits Valuation Act and which is in the following words:

Suits, in which the plaintiff in the plaint seeks to recover the amount, which may be found due to the plaintiff on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant. * * * * Value for the purpose of As determined by the Court-court-fee fees Act, 1870.Value for the purpose of For the purpose of Suitsjurisdiction, Valuation Act, 1887, and thePunjab Courts Act, 1918, asvalued by the plaintiff inthe plaint subject to determination by the Courtat any stage of the trial.

The learned Judge thought that as the plaintiff himself had shown that the amount of Rs. 10,000 will be found due from the' defendant the value for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction should have been fixed at RB. 10,000 and he ordered accordingly. It may be stated that after the passing of this order the plaintiff asked for time to pay court-fee and time having been given he made good the court-fee before 28th May 1948 as is clear from the order of the learned Judge dated 28th May 1948.

4. A revision has been filed against this order and I have heard Mr. M.L. Sethi for the respondent in this case. He first urges that no revision lies against the order and relies upon Section 12, Court-fees Act. I am unable to agree with his submission on this point. An issue was framed with regard to the value for the purpose of court-fee. A decision was given wherein the learned Judge found what the value for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee was. If in coming to that decision the learned Judge has committed an irregularity which comes within Section 115, Civil P.C., I think a revisional Court will be justified in interfering at this stage.

5. In my opinion, if I may say with great respect, the learned Judge was in error in coming to the conclusion that he did. The plaintiff in para. 7 of his plaint had stated that he was not sure what the proper amount due on rendition of acoounts would be but he thought that it would be about Rs. 10,000. To base a finding on this vague kind of an allegation is not, in my opinion, determination by the Court of the amount due from the defendant. In suits for accounts it is for the plaintiff to tentatively value his suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee and after evidence has been led it will then be for the Court to find out at the proper stage as to what the amount due will be and on the determination of that amount court-fee has to be paid by the plaintiff.' Before that it may not be possible for the Court to find out the value for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee.

6. As I have said before, the learned Judge had no material before him on which to come to the finding at which he has arrived and I think a case has been made out for revising the order passed by the learned Judge.

7. In the result, I must allow this revision, set aside the order of the learned Judge and hold that the plaintiff in the circumstances of this case having valued the suit for purposes of juris-direction and court-fee at Rs. 5,100 had rightly paid court-fee on that amount. The revision is, therefore, allowed. No order as to costs. The extra court-fee paid by the petitioner in the trial Court will be refunded.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //