ORDER. — This is a petition to revise the order of the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dated 25th September, 1976 directing the petitioner herein who were the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 4390 of 1973 to pay court-fees under section 40 or the Tamil Nadu Court-fees Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners herein who were the plaintiffs in the suit stated that one Ghanshamdas Chaturbuj introduced one B.E. Loungani of the first defendant firm a to them, that the said Loungani became an intimate friend of the second plaintiff (second petitioner herein), that the said Loungani represented that he would require hundies for the purpose of accommodation to enable him to discount with third parties and raise monies thereon for the purpose of his business, that the said Loungani also assured the plaintiffs that he would himself make the necessary arrangements for the honouring of the hundies on the due dates and that no liability would be fastened upon the plaintiffs and that he had facilities with the second defendant for accommodation to the extent of Rs. 50,000. The plaintiffs further stated in the plaint that to oblige the first defendant they gave three documents styled as hundies duly signed by them, that no dates or other particulars were mentioned in those documents stated to be hundies except the signatures and addresses of each of the plaintiffs in each of the documents, that the said documents were not supported by consideration, at all and that they were intended to accommodate the first defendant. However, according to the plaintiffs, the defendants colluded and conspired together and with the mala fide intention of mulcting liability on the plaintiffs threatened to take action against them in respect of the aforesaid hundies, the conduct of the defen-dants was thoroughly mala fide and fraudulent and collusive; the plaintiffs were being cheated by the defendants compelling them to part with large sums of money as though full consideration was paid under each of the hundies; and hence it has become necessary to institute the suit for a declaration that the three hundies were invalid and inoperative. On the basis of these averments the plaintiffs prayed for a decree:

(1) declaring that the three documents styled as hundies for Rs. 5,000 each falling due on 30th May, 1973, 2nd July, 1973 and 2nd June, 1973 respectively in favour of the first defendant are invalid inoperative and void; and

(2) for costs.

2. Among other defences, one defence taken by the first defendant was that the court-fee should have been paid under section 40 of the Act and that the plaintiffs could not have valued the suit and paid the court-fee under section 25 (d) of the Act.

3. The learned IV Assistant Judge accepted the contention of the first defendant in this behalf and held that the plaintiffs had to pay court-fee under section 40 of the Act and not under section 25 (d) of the Act and gave time to the plaintiffs to pay the court-fee under section 40 of the Act. It is this order that is challenged in the present civil revision petition.

4. Section 25 of the. Act deals with suits for declaration. After dealing with suits for declaration and for possession of the property in clause (a) and for declaration and consequential injunction with reference to immoveable property in clause (b) and for declaration in relation to the exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing in clause (c), it provides in clause (d) follows: —

“In other cases, whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees four hundred whichever is higher”.

Section 40 of the Act deals with suits for cancellation of decrees, etc., and section 40

(1) reads as follows: —

“In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document which purpor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document