M.C. JAIN, J — This is a revision by the plaintiff-petitioners under section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated April 6, 1979 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the preliminary objection of the petitioners against the defendants application under Sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been overruled and the defendants application was directed to be heard.

2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession of the suit property and in para 24 of the plaint, the plaintiffs valued the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction of the court at Rs 51,000/-and paid the court fee to the tune of Rs. 1308/- under Sec. 24 of the Act. The defendant no. 1 submitted an application on February 24, 1979 under sections 10, 11(2) and 18 of the Act and order 7, rule 11(b) C.P.C. It was stated in the application that the plaintiffs have deliberately under-valued the suit and have paid deficit court fee. The details of the property in question have not been given in order to pay less court fee. It was stated that the valuation of the disputed property is not less than ten lacs. It was prayed that the plaintiffs be directed to pay the deficit court fee and on non-payment of requisite court fee, the plaintiffs suit may be dismissed. Reply to this application was filed by the plaintiffs on March 16, 1979 wherein the contents of the application were denied and it was stated that the plaintiffs have paid full court fee Counsel for the defendants no. 2 and 3 also adopted the application submitted by defendant no. 1. Preliminary objection was raised by the plaintiffs that the question of valuation of suit for purposes of court fee. should be raised only in the written statement and not by way of application Arguments on this preliminary objection were heard and the same was over-ruled by the impugned order placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Motilal vs. Jagdish Prasad Sharma(l). Dissatisfied with the order of rejection of the preliminary objection, the plaintiffs have approached this Court under section 115 C.P.C.

3. On behalf of the non-petitioners, their learned counsel Shri M.L. Panwar, Shri G.N. Gaur and Shri D.K. Parihar have raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present revision petition. It was urged by them that the present revision petition does not lie against the impugned order as the impugned order is an interlocutory order by which no rights or obligations of the parties have been adjudicated upon. The impugned order is not covered under the expression "any case which has been decided". Though this expression has been explained in the explanation introduced by section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act, 1976) (104 to 1976) (hereinafter) for the sake of brevity be referred to as the Amendment Act). Alternatively, it was also contended that even if it is found that the expression "any order" in the explanation includes interlocutory orders, still the impugned order does not satisfy the requirements of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 115 C.P.C. It was contended that the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would not occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom, it was made. In support of these alternative contentions, reliance has been placed on some case law.

4. Shri I.C. Maloo, counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners on the other hand, urged that the expression any case which has been decided" occurring in subsection (1) of section 115 C P.C., has been explained in sub-section (2) and according to the explanation, this expression, includes any order made or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding. Shri Maloo vehemently contended that the expression "any order" is not only restricted to final orders but should be given as extended meaning so as to include even interlocuto

Click Here to Read the rest of this document