This petition is directed against the order dated 20.7.89 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Sibsagar in Title Suit No. 2 of 1988. The present petition has been filed by the defendants. By the said order, the learned trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants that no proper court fee was paid. The Court allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC and directed appointment of Survery Commissioner.

2. Heard Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

3. Mr. Baruah has fairly stated that regarding court fee, defendants may not have any right to approach this Court for exercising revisional jurisdiction. But, however, it is the duty of the defendants to ensure that the State revenue is not lost. On the other hand Mr. Goswami has submitted that law is well laid down by the Apex Court that the revisional Court cannot interfere any order passed by the learned trial Court regarding payment of court fee.

4. The learned trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants that court fee has to be paid under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, whereas according to be plaintiffs it has to be paid under section 7 (v) (b) of the said Act.

5. From the impugned order I find that the suit was for confirmation of possession as well as for possession and also for permanent injunction etc.

6. I have perused the plaint and the written statement and I have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial Court rightly held that proper court fee was paid inasmuch as the suit was covered under section 7 (v) (b) of the Act.

7. Attention of this Court has been drawn to section 7-A of the Court Fees Act which has amended by the Assam Amending Act, 1947. This section empowers the Court to conduct an enquiry, provided that the Court is of the opinion that the subject matter of any suit has been wrongly valued. It may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation, and may hold such inquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose. This section came up for consideration before this Court in two decisions, namely, in Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Bhubaneswar Barthkur, AIR 1983 Gauhati 71 and Md. Hafiz @ Hafizuddin Ahmed vs. Mustt. Noorjahan, AIR 1989 Gauhati 3. This Court in the above two decisions held that in view of the above section 7A though the plaintiff has the liberty to give the value of the relief, the Court has power to make an enquiry which was done in the case in hand.

8. Now the question is whether against the said order a revision petition is maintainable. In this connection Mr. Goswami has drawn attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Rathoavarmaraja vs. Smti Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299. Their Lordships laid down that the Court Fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action. Their Lordships also held that the defendant cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate court fee on his plaint and whether proper court fee was paid on a plaint was prima­rily a question between the plaintiff and the State. It was specifically laid down that under section 115 of the CPC the powers of this Court is strictly conditioned by clauses (a) to (c) of the said section and therefore, the Court cannot interfere by exercising divisional jurisdiction in such matters. It was further held that the defendant may believe and even honestly that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff but still has not right to move the superior Courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint. The Apex Court in the above ratio con­sidered Act 14 of 1955 enacted by the Madras Legislature and more particularly section 12 of the Act which enables the defendant to take a plea that the subject matter was not properl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document