JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) WHETHER the language in Sec. 11 (2) of the A. P. Court Fees and suits Valuation Act VII of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) directing that "all questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before the hearing of the suit" is mandatory or only a directory is the question involved in this revision petition. Since this question is of general importance, the learned single Judge has referred the same to a Division bench. The lesrned single Judge Madhava Reddy, J (as he then was) in the order of reference has also noted that there is a conflict of opinion between andrew Chalmera Internationals Ltd. , England vs. Indian Tobacco Suppliers (Pvt.) Ltd Chilakaluripet and Subrahmanyam vs. C. Venkataramana and therefore it is necessary to have an authoritative pronouncement on the question.

( 2 ) IN O. S. No. 959 of 1980 on the file of the II Addl. Judge, Citycivil Court, Hyderabad, the second defendant filed a petition under Sec. 11 (2) of the Act read with Order XIV Rule 2 (b) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to decide the issue relating to the valuation of the suit and quantum of court-fee payable in the suit as a preliminary issue. The learned II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad held that the issue relating to the payment of court fee can be decided after completion of evidence and the same cannot be treated as a preliminary issue at that stage as it is unnecessary and as it results in repetition. Therefore he proposed to try the issue relating to payment of court fee along with other issues and in that view he dismissed the petition. Against that order the present revision petition is preferred.

( 3 ) MADHAVA Reddy, J. (as he then was) in his order of referenceobserved that though he was of the view that the learned Addl. Judge has not committed any error of law or material irregularity or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in refusing to decide the issue regarding the court fee as a preliminary issue, yet in view of the conflict of opinions, he referred the same to the Division Bench.

( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thelanguage Section 11 (2) of the Act is mandatory and therefore the issue relating to payment of court fee has necessarily to be decided as a preliminary issue. In support of his contention reliance is placed on a judgment of this court reported in A. C. Internatio nals case (1 supra) and also on the decisions reported in P. V. G. Raju vs. The State of A P. and others ; r. Venkatramayya vs. T. Narayanamma and Md Shahabuddin vs. A. Saijulla hussain.

( 5 ) AT our request the learned Additional Advocate General assistedthe Court, since nobody appeared for the respondents. He submitted that the language in Section 11 (2) of the Act is not mandatory and therefore as to which issue has to be tried as preliminary issue should be left to the discretion of the Court and as to whether an issue relating to payment of court fee in the facts and circumstances of the case should be tried as preliminary issue or not is within the discretion of the court. It is also his submission that where the question of jurisdiction is involved, it may be necessary to try the same as a preliminary issue, but each and every issue relating to the payment of court fee does not require to be tried as a prelinary issue and the court in its discretion can try the same jointly along with other issues and in doing so it has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction or material irregularity.

( 6 ) SECTION 11 of the Act deals with the decision as to payment ofproper court fee. It reads thus :"11. Decision as to proper fee : (1) (a) In every suit the Court shall, before ordering the plaint to be registered decide on the allegations contained in the plaint and on the materials furnished by the plaintiff the proper fee payable thereon. (b) The decision of the Court under clause (a) regarding the proper fee payable shall be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document