The question of court fee and jurisdiction must be decided before the commencement of the trial, and an order passed after the commencement of the trial is not sustainable in law.

S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs in O. S. No. 668 of 1980 on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif, Visakhaparnam, are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. The suit was filed for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property against the first defendant in 1980, On 24-12-1982 the petitioners impleaded the second defendant. The second defendant filed his written statement on 3-3-1987. In the written statement he took the plea that the plaintiffs had under valued the suit and if the suit is valued on the basis of the market value as in 1980, the Court would not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. On the basis of that plea, three additional issues were framed on 12-3-1987, of which issue No. 2, which is relevant for purposes of this revision, is as follows:-"whether the court fee paid is not correct and this Court has no jurisdiction?"thereafter, the second defendant filed I. A. No. 190 of 1987 to give a finding on additional issue No. 2, which touches upon the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court The trial Court considered the issue and recorded the finding that the valuation given by the plaintiffs was not correct and that if the suit is valued on the basis of half of the market value given in Ex. A-10, the suit would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, allowed the I. A, and directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before the proper court. This order was passed on 13-4-1987. The plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal before the i Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in C. M. A. No. 30 of 1987. The learned appellate Judge confirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal on 21-7-1988. It is the correctness of this order of the appellate Court that is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

( 2 ) MR. M. Rama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that under Section 11 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the question with regard to court fee and jurisdiction has to be decided before the commencement of the trial. He relied on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Chillakuri Chenchurami Reddy vs. Kanupuru Chenchurami Reddy and the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in M/s. Rai Bahadur S. S. Durga prasad vs. State of A. P. Mr. A. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, contends that the second defendant was impleaded after four years of the filing of the suit. He raised the question of jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity in his written statement and immediately thereafter he applied for determination of that issue. He did not even cross-examine the witness. Therefore, the commencement of the trial has no effect so far as the second defendant is concerned.

( 3 ) THE short question that arises for consideration is whether the order under revision is sustainable in law.

( 4 ) IT may be pointed out that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, two conditions must be satisfied - (1) The order under revision should suffer from an error of jurisdiction, and (2) If the order is allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. I shall now see whether these two requirements are satisfied for interference of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 5 ) FROM the facts narrated above, it is evident that the second defendant was impleaded in December, 1984 and he filed his written statement in March, 1987. Even before he filed the written statement, the plaintiff was examined on 18-7-1986 and 29-7-1986 and he marked Exs. A-l to A-10 on 1-10-1986. The second defendant did not cross-examine P. W. I. While so, the trial did not progress. The second defendant filed his written statement on 12-3-1987 raising the question with regard to payment of court fee and jurisdiction of the court. In view of the pleas taken in the wri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document