ORDER :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 24.04.2024 passed in CFR No.2556 of 2024 in unnumbered suit /2024 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati.

2. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that:

The petitioners filed the plaint for declaring them as Legal heirs of Emuka @ Yamuka Usha Rani, being heirs of her husband and for a consequential direction to defendant nos. 3 and 4 to pay the plaint schedule amount and hand over duplicate key to open the locker of the deceased Yamuka Usha Rani. The said plaint was returned vide orders dated 24.04.2024 holding that the same was not properly valued.

3. Heard Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. Sarala Neelagiri, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

4. Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for petitioners, in elaboration to the grounds of the Civil Revision Petition would contend that out of the two reliefs claimed in the plaint, the court fee is paid on the second relief as per section 24(d) of APCF & SV Act, however, the trial court even without assessing and mentioning the notional value on which court fee has to be paid, rejected the plaint as per Order-7, Rule-11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He would further contend that the question of payment of Court fee can be gone into at any stage of the suit after numbering and therefore rejecting the plaint for want of sufficiency of court fee, is unsustainable. He would further contend that if at all the Court finds that court fee is insufficiently paid, it can even direct while passing judgment to pay the deficit court fee, if any, by making the decree inexecutable, till such payment, however, the trial Court, returned the plaint holding that it was valued improperly. He would further contend that the order of the learned trial Judge without considering that the question of deficit court fee can always be decided at any stage erroneously returned the plaint and the said order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision in Pottem Ashok Kumar vs. T.Chidambar and others, 2019 (4) ALD 273

5. On the other hand, Ms. Sarala Neelagiri, learned counsel for respondent no.1 would submit that whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint, or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher as per section 24(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. She would further contend that it is not open to the court to rush to High Court and file Civil Revision Petition the moment a query is raised, it is the duty of the counsel to answer the query raised and represent the same. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

In support of her contentions, she relied on the decisions in Smt. N.Sulochana vs. The Collector, Hyderabad and another, 1968(1) AnWR 296 and M/s. Associated Automotives Sales Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory P.D.Prasad, Prakasam Road, Vijayawada and another vs. R.K.Mahesh (since died) and others, 2018(2) ALT 488

6. Sri Bachina Hanumantharao, learned counsel for respondent no.3 justified the order passed by the learned trial Judge in returning the plaint on the ground that it was valued improperly.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The plaint is filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of a female Hindu i.e. the deceased Emuka @ Yamuka Usha Rani, being heirs of her husband Emuka @ Yamuka siva Rao and for a consequential direction to the defendants 3 and 4-Bank and Postal authorities, to pay the plaint schedule amoun