S.N. Deedwania, J — The revision petition is preferred against the order, dated November 26, 1979 of learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur, whereby, issue No. 7 with regard to the sufficiency of the court—fee was decided against the petitioner—plaintiff.

2. Briefly stated the facts are these. The petitioner filed a suit against the non-petitioner and it was averred in the plaint that the petitioner submitted a tender for supply of 5,88,000 metres Galvanised Iron (Mild steel) pipes light class 20 m.m. diameter. The petitioner received a letter, dated May 5, 1973 by the non-petitioner for confirmation of various conditions with regard to the said offer. The petitioner by its letter, dated May 9, 1973 made certain counter offer regarding the supply of the said G. I. Pipes and accepted the non-petitioner standard penalty clause subject to force measure. By its letter, dated July 9, 1973 the tender was accepted but all the terms and conditions of the petitioners counter offer, dated May 9, 1973 were not accepted. It is further averred that by the letter, dated July 9, 1973 the non-petitioner did not agree to all the terms of the petitioner and therefore, no concluded contract came into existence between the parties. On 16-7-73, the petitioner specifically repudiated the contract Thus, no concluded contract came into existence between the parties and in the alternative, the same was revoked on July 16, 1973. The petitioner received letter, dated September 23, 1973 asking him to supply G. I. Pipes as per contr-ct, dated July 9, 1973. The petitioner replied that the contract already stood cancelled. Thereafter, the non-petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 1,39,660/- being the amount of extra expenditure involved in the purchase of G. I. Pipes under clause 18 of the Contract4dated July 9, 1973 According to the plaintiff the delivery period was 3 4 months and the non-petitioner was not entitled to make any risk purchase on or about 8th of August, 1973. The following reliefs were claimed by the petitioner :-

(a) A declaration that the contract and/or order, dated 9th July, 1973 between the plaintiff and the defendant as pleaded in paragraph 5 hereof stands cancelled and/or revoked on and from 16th July, 1973.

(b) A declaration that the plaintiff is not liable to pay to the defendant any amount as damages or as alleged in the said letter, dated 23rd September, 1975 as pleaded in paragraph 11 hereof.

The suit was valued for the purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 10,099/. The non-petitioner took an objection that the suit should be valued at Rs. 1,39,660/- and court fees ought to have been paid accordingly. Learned Additional District Judge held that the suit was governed by section 38 of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 and therefore, the petitioner should have valued the suit at Rs. 1,39,660/- and paid the Court-fees accordingly.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of the case carefully.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit has been rightly valued under section 24(e) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), while the learned counsel for the non-petitioner supported the order of the trial court and vehemently contended that the suit is governed by section 38 of the Act and mainly relied upon the case M/s. Ratlam Straw Board Mills Private Ltd. vs. Union of India (1). I have considered the rival contentions and my decision is to the following effect. Sections 38 and 24(e) of the Act are as under :

"S. 38. Suits for cancellations of decrees, etc.—

(1) In a suit for cancellation of decree for money or other property having a money value or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document