( 1 ) THIS Revision is filed against the order passed in O. S. No. 262/89 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur.

( 2 ) THE Suit is filed by 19 plaintiffs for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of schedule of property, consisting of plots 1 to 19. The plaintiffs valued the Suit and paid the Court Fee under Section 26 (c) of A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The inspection Staff took objection and issued a check slip stating that the Court Fees cannot be paid under Section 26 (c) of the Act on the ground that though single suit is filed, the reliefs sought are individual in respect of plots 1 to 19. Therefore, the plaintiffs have to pay Court Fee on each relief.

( 3 ) IT was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that common questions of law and fact arise and as such the plaintiffs are right in joining in one suit and that the Court Fee paid is proper. It is further submitted that under Section 16 of the a. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, Court Fee examiner appointed by the high Court alone should examine the correctness of the Court Fee and not the district Judge at the time of inspection etc. The lower Court negatived the contentions and directed to pay the Court Fee as per the check slip.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order the present Revision is filed.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners submitted that all the petitioners are in possession of their respective plots. They claimed common relief against Guntur Municipality. As common questions of law and fact arise, the plaintiffs are entitled to file a single Suit and also to club the causes of action and pay Court Fee as per Section 26 (c) of the Act. He also contended that the District Judge, at the time of inspection, cannot deal with the question whether the plaint is properly stamped or not. It is only the Court Fee examiners, appointed by the High Court, that are competent to examine the correctness of the Court Fee.

( 6 ) IN support of his contention he relied upon the judgment in Janaki Ammal and another vs. D. Rangachari. In this case, it was held that ordinarily there are three stages at which a Court can enquire into the question whether the plaint or appeal has been properly valued. They are (1) Before the registration of the plaint or appeal. In such cases it will be open to the Court to review, correct and further review its decision in the manner specified in Section 12 (1) of the Act; (2) After the Suit or Appeal has been registered an issue on the Court fee can be raised by the defendant or respondent and the Court should decide the matter, and that in such cases the decision will be binding on the Court that rendered it unless a fresh decision is asked for by the Court fee examiner; (3) On the objection of the Court fee examiner under Section 18 of the Act, when a decision has been given on the report of the Court fee examiner, no further review or reconsideration is possible except by an appellate Court under Section 12 (4) of the Act. It is also held that the decisions given under Section 18 (2) of the Act will be final so far as that Court is concerned and that in the absence of statutory provision expressly enabling the Court to review its decision, a decision on the question of Court-fee once given will be binding on the Court which gave the decision at all subsequent stages.

( 7 ) HE also relied upon a Bench judgment of this Court in Gadde Veeramma vs. Bayipati Satyanarayatia. In this case it was held mat not only at the stage of registering the plaint but subsequent thereto on an objection raised by the defendant the matter relating to the valuation of the subject matter as well as the payment of Court fee can be heard and disposed of by the Court and that it is clear that whenever a Court fee examiner raises an objection relating to valuation of the subject matter and sufficiency of Court fee, it is obligatory