1979 Supreme(Raj) 439

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.C.Agrawal, J.
Nath Raj - Appellant
Versus
State Bank of Bikaner And Jaipur - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision No. 608 of 1975 and 194 of 1979.
Decided On : 15-11-1979

A plea of adjustment and satisfaction does not constitute a plea of set off or counter claim and the respondent is not liable to pay court fee on the claim of adjustment and satisfaction.

Headnote:

COURT FEES - SET OFF OR COUNTER CLAIM - DISTINCTION - PLEA OF ADJUSTMENT - NOT LIABLE TO COURT FEES - PLEA OF SET OFF OR COUNTER CLAIM - LIABLE TO COURT FEES - INTERPRETATION OF WORDS "EQTJKS IKUS" IN THE CONTEXT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - HELD TO MEAN SET OFF.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a borrower from the Bank, filed a suit against the Bank for recovery of Rs. 38,303.88 on account of the amount due under the loan advanced by the Bank to the petitioner under the Cash Credit Account, the interest payable on the said amount of loan as well as the expenses incurred by the Bank in engaging a chowkidar to keep a watch over the goods which have been hypothecated by the petitioner with the Bank under the hypothecation agreement and other incidental expenses incurred by the Bank in connection with aforesaid loan. In the written statement, the petitioner raised a plea that the Bank by taking illegal possession of the factory and the godown of the petitioner on 31st October, 1972 had prevented the petitioner from carrying on his business, as a result of which the petitioner had suffered a loss of Rs. 1,000/- per month in respect of which the petitioner was reserving his right to file a separate suit. The petitioner further pleaded that the Bank has retained with it machines, chemicals and other articles described in the list annexed to the written statement and that the said goods which were of the value of Rs. 44,775/- have now deteriorated and that the petitioner is entitled to receive the said amount from the Bank as the said loss has been caused on account of negligence of the Bank for which it is responsible. The petitioner also stated that in law, no court fee is payable but in case court fee is demanded on the aforesaid amount, he is willing to pay the same.

Finding of the Court:

The Additional District Judge held that the plea raised by the petitioner in his written statement could not regarded as a plea of adjustment but is a counter claim and that the petitioner is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the same. The petitioner filed a Revision petition against the order. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner moved an application for the amendment of the written statement so as to add paragraph 1A in the additional pleas to the written statement. By the aforesaid amendment the petitioner sought to plead that on account of the negligence of the Bank, damage to the extent of Rs. 44,775/- was caused to the goods and the machines of the petitioner and that the aforesaid amount had already been adjusted by the petitioner in the account of the Bank with him and the information about the same was also given by him to the Bank on 1st January, 1975 and that as a result of the aforesaid adjustment money is recoverable by the petitioner from the Bank and that the suit of the Bank is not maintainable. The Additional District Judge, by his order dated 12th May, 1979, dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. The petitioner filed a Revision petition against the order dated 12th May 1979, passed by the Additional District Judge, rejecting the application of the amendment of the written statement.

Issues: 1. Whether the plea raised by the petitioner in his written statement is a plea of adjustment or a counter claim? 2. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay court fee on the sum of Rs. 44,775/- claimed by him? 3. Whether the Additional District Judge erred in rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioner?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A plea of adjustment and satisfaction does not constitute a plea of set off or counter claim and the respondent is not liable to pay court fee on the claim of adjustment and satisfaction. 2. The plea raised by the petitioner in para 2 of the additional pleas raised in the written statement that he is entitled to recover Rs. 44,775/-, the value of the machines, chemicals and other articles retained by the Back cannot be regarded as a plea of adjustment. 3. The Additional District Judge was therefore, right in holding that the plea raised by the petitioner in para 2 of the additional pleas raised in the written statement is not a plea of adjustment and that the petitioner is liable to pay court fee on the sum of Rs. 44,775/- claimed by him from the Bank.

Final Decision: Both the revision petitions are dismissed.