Judgement Key Points

D.L. MEHTA, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment-dated, 18.1.89 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

2. Plaintiff instituted a suit in the court of learned District Judge, Jaipur City, which was transferred in the court of Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 10,001/-. Defendant submitted the written statement and raised the objection that the property is worth more than Rs. 1 Lac and plaintiff should be asked to make payment of the court fees valuing the suit at Rs. 1 Lac.

3. Application was also moved subsequently under section-11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees Act and prayer was made that the Court should inquire about the valuation of the property in dispute and decide this point first before hearing of the suit as contemplated by order 14 C.P.C. Application moved by the defendant was rejected by the trial court. Being aggrieved with the order of rejecting this revision petition has been filed.

4. Mr. Lodha appearing on behalf of the petitioner has cited before me the case of Moti Lal v. Jagdish Prasad (1), in which it has been held as under:-

"Sec. 11(1) lays down that the Court shall apply its mind to the question as to whether the Court fee paid is sufficient before the plaint is registered. This decision is subject to review, further review and correction but only in the manner specified in the succeeding sub-section. These sub-sections are sub-sections (2) and (3). Sub-section (2) is applicable to the present defence. It is open to a defendant before filing a written statement in reply to all the allegations in the plaint to take a plea that the suit has been undervalued and the court fees is insufficiently paid. In that case the Court would be bound to decide the question as to whether the suit has been properly valued. But once the written statement has been filed the only manner in which the plea can be taken is by amending the written statement."

5. Mr, Lodha has also cited before me the case of Gangaram v. Phulia (2). This Court has held that the Judge has to give decision whether the court fees paid is sufficient or insufficient, though in latter case time may be allowed to make up deficiency.

6. Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees Act was considered by this Court and directions were given to determine the court fees.

7. Mr. Lodha has also cited before me the case of Jagdish Rai v. Smt. Sant Kaur (3) and submitted that the question of court fees is a preliminary point which ought to be decided by the Court before proceeding to decide the merits of the case.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Ranjan appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner, submitted before the court that section-ll of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is not mandatory, but, it is directory in nature. He submits that the word shall should be read as may.

9. Mr. Ranjan further submits that the Code of Civil Procedure as modified vide Amending Act of 1976, provides under Order-14 Rule 2(1) that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) pronounce the judgment on all issues. He submits that the issue relating to the payment of court fees has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction of the Court. Whether a suit is valued for Rs. 11,000/- or Rs. 1 lac, it is immaterial for the purpose of the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr. Ranjan further submits that only in exceptional cases, provided under Order 14 Rule 2 sub-rule-2, the Court should dispose of an issue as a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or there is a bar created by law in entertaining the suit for hearing. Mr. Ranjan has cited before me the case of Cheni Ram v. Shanti Devi (4), in which this Court has held as under:-

"Whether the cause of action for a suit arose at place A or place B is a mixed question of law and fact.

An issue can be considered and decided as a prelimin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document