The Chirala Rate Payers and Civic Amenities Association, Chirala represented by its Vice President Grandhi Chenchaiah filed this revision petition under Sec. 115 CPC for revising the judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala dt. 9-10-2006 in CMA No.6/2006, confirming the judgment passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala dt. 10-4-2006 in OS No.486/2002, returning the plaint for presentation in a proper court as the court will not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. The petitioner herein, namely, Chirala Rate Papers’ and Civic Amenities Association, Chirala, (for short “the petitionerAssocaition”) is the plaintiff in the suit. It filed the above suit OS No.486/2002 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala against the respondent herein, namely, Chirala Municipality, questioning the validity of house tax assessment and to declare demand notices issued in the month of March to the members of the Association are illegal and void and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendantMunicipality from collecting the enhanced house-tax from the members of the petitioner-Association.

3. The respondent-Municipality filed written statement while denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint stated that the revision was the outcome of the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.154 Municipal Administration dt,. 8-4-2002 and the Municipality has followed its own procedure despite the directions of the Government. The Government through its memo No.244/8/’TCI/2001 dt. 10-01-2002 issued instructions to conduct revision of property tax assessments with effect from 1-4-2002. In due implementation of the instructions, the Municipality conducted revision of property tax assessments, strictly following the mandatory provisions of the Statute and in accordance with the existing G.Os, and circular orders of the Government issued in this regard and special demand notices were issued to the assesses. Some of the members of the petitioner-Association refused to take demand notices. If any person aggrieved by the order of the said revision, can prefer appeal before the appellate authority by depositing the tax in respect of which the appeal is preferred within the stipulated time. But none of the members of the petitionerAssociation preferred any appeal. The suit is not maintainable as the tax is assessed and collected individually depending upon the nature of building, plinth area, nature of use, and rental value etc., The total amount that was levied for all the members of the petitionerAssociation is over Rs.31,86,412/- per year and the annexed statement shows all the particulars such as assessment numbers, existing tax as on 31-3-2002, revised tax levied as per the Government orders. The jurisdiction of the civil court is expressly barred and the suit should be valued on the amount demanded or the advantage the members of the petitioner-Association would gain or injury or loss the Municipality would avoid. The petitioner-Association suppressing the said facts instituted the suit by paying nominal court fee and the court will not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

4. Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge by his order dt. 10-4-2006 found favour with the contention of under-valuation of the suit at Rs.10000/- and payment of court-fee and if the suit is decreed the petitioner-Association will gain a sum of Rs.31,86,412/-, therefore the petitioner-Association has to pay court fee thereon and the court will not have jurisdiction to try the suit as the value of the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Junior Civil Judge and accordingly returned the plaint with a direction to present the same before the proper court.

5. On appeal being filed by the petitioner-Association, learned Senior Civil Judge held that on enactment of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short “the Court Fees Act, 1956”), the application of Court Fees Act, 1870 to the State of Andhra Pradesh has been repealed and