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 plain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document