V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises from the order in I. A. No. 5 of 1997 in O. S. No. 374 of 1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Salur holding that the Court fee paid in the above suit is not correct and directing the revision petitioner - plaintiff and Respondent No. 8 to pay the proper Court fee.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this C. R. P. are as follows: The revision petitioner and Respondent No. 8 filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of AC. 104. 75 cents of land claiming that they have purchased the same along with 24 others whom they represent. The property has been valued notionally at Rs. 2,000. 00 for the purpose of Court-fee. The respondents filed a written statement contesting the suit and issues were framed and thereafter the trial also commenced. The revision petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1 and also marked some documents. At this stage, the respondents filed I. A. No. 5 of 1997 under Section 151 C. P. C. seeking a direction to the revision petitioner and Respondent No. 8 to pay the Court-fee on each relief in respect of each plot of the plaint schedule property. It is asserted in the affidavit of Respondent No. 1 that the entire extent of Ac. 104. 75 cents of land was purchased by the plaintiffs and 24 others under 26 different sale deeds in respect of different plots but not in a single sale deed or in a single transaction and hence the relief in respect of each plot by different purchasers is involved and that each of them should be valued separately and the Court fee should be paid on each relief.

( 3 ) THE petition was resisted by the revision petitioner and respondent No. 8. It is stated in the counter that the entire plaint schedule property is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs (revision petitioner and respondent No. 8) and hence they filed the above suit for permanent injunction. It is their case that in view of the relief sought for in the above suit they need not pay the Court-fee on the actual value of the plaint property and that the suit was numbered after the matter was considered exhaustively. It is lastly asserted that the Court-fee paid in the above suit is only based on the notional value but not on the actual value of the suit schedule property and hence the above petition is not maintainable.

( 4 ) THE learned Junior Civil Judge considered the contentions of both the sides and following a decision of this Court in K. Bhanumathi v. Guntur Municipal Council, 1996 (4) ALT 730, held that the Court-fee paid in the suit is insufficient and hence the plaintiffs are directed to pay the proper Court-fee. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the above order and hence this civil revision petition is filed.

( 5 ) SRI Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has made two-fold submissions. It is firstly contended that the issue relating to Court-fee cannot be gone into after the commencement of the trial and in support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of my learned Brother Justice Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, as he then was in O. Bhaskara Rao v. A. Saibabu, 1993 (2) ALT 475. He then contended that the suit is for bare injunction and under Section 26 (C) of the A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short the Act ), Court-fee is payable on the notional value but not on the actual value and he relied on the judgment of my learned Brother Justice V. Rajagopala Reddy in K. Ramamurthy v. Executive Officer, 1996 (2) ALD 75, in support of his contention. Thus, he contended that the impugned order which is admittedly passed after P. W. 1 is examined to some extent, cannot be sustained especially in view of the well considered decision cited (1993 (2) ALT 475 supra ).

( 6 ) ON the other hand, Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the question of Court-fee can be gone into at any stage and the judgment rendered by my learned Brother Justice Siddappa (supra) covers all the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document