In case of non-deposit of requisite court fee court can reject the plaint only and not the suit.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.84 of 1995, on the file of First Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry, is the revision petitioner.

2. Plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the lower court has directed the plaintiff to value the suit under Sec.40(1) of the Pondicherry Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, and also directed her to pay the deficit court-fee within 15 days from the date of order and amend the plaint accordingly.

The lower court further observed that if there was default in complying with that direction, the suit will be dismissed.

3. The material averments which are necessary for the purpose of this revision may be summed up as follows:

The reliefs sought for in the suit are as hereunder:

“(1) declaring that the plaintiff’s surely for 1st defendant is not enforceable against her;

.(2) directing the defendant No. 1 to return the title deeds mentioned in the schedule hereunder to the plaintiff;

.(3) restraining the defendant No.3 from proceeding against the plaintiff for non-payment of licence fees by defendant No. 1;

.(4) directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit; and

.(5) pass such further or other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances.”

4. In the body of the plaint, it is said that the first defendant approached her stating that he is taking part in auctioning of arrack shops for the year 1993-94, and he wanted the plaintiff to offer her title deeds for giving surety. First defendant further promised that in case he was declared as the successful bidder, he will pay Rs. 10,000 per mensem to the plaintiff for offering surety. Plaintiff also accepted the promise and gave her title deeds. First defendant was declared as successful bidder in respect of Arrack shop No. 1/ B at Karayamputhoor. On 8. 1993, first defendant brought a typed lease agreement with full of blanks and asked her to sign at the places marked ‘X’ The lease form was not signed by anybody at that time. Plaintiff signed the lease agreement form in her house believing the assurance given by the first defendant. It is further said that the first defendant also told the plaintiff that all the blanks in the typed lease form would be filled up by the Excise officials, and, at the time of registration, the contents of the document would be read over to her. Plaintiff also waited with the hope that she would be sent for at the time of registration.

5. Thereafter, plaintiff approached the first defendant and asked him to pay Rs. 10,000 per month. But the first defendant evaded payment. It was at that time represented by the first defendant that the plaintiff was a surety and, therefore, he is not liable to pay any amount to her. It is further said that on enquiry in the third defendant’s office, she came to know that the registration of the lease deed was without her admission of execution and her surety was accepted by the third defendant. Second defendant registered the lease agreement on 111. 1993, though the plaintiff did not admit the execution. Plaintiff requested for a copy of the lease deed. But it was not furnished to her. She sent a suit notice, but it was not replied. The cause of action of the suit is said to have arisen at Pondicherry within the jurisdiction of the trial court, on 8. 1993 when the plaintiff signed the unfilled typed lease agreement on 3. 1994 and 23. 1994 when notices were sent to defendants 3 and 1 respectively and on 111. 1993 when the alleged lease agreement was registered, and on subsequent dates.

6. It is seen that the first defendant has filed a written statement and one of the contentions raised was the suit has not been correctly valued and correct court-fee has not been paid.

7. By the impugned order, the lower court found that the valuation of the suit under Sec.25(d) is not correct. It said that without a prayer for setting aside the document, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief even though the relief is couched in the form of a declaration. The lower