Rajamannar, C.J.-The petitioners filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur for a declaration that they were, or, in the alternative, the second plaintiff was the hereditary archaka of a temple. They paid a fixed court-fee of Rs.100 under Article 17-A of schedule II of the Court-Fees Act valuing the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs.3,600. On an objection taken to the correctness of the valuation, the learned Subordinate Judge, after enquiry, found that the suit had been grossly undervalued, that the valuation of the property in suit exceeded Rs.10,000 and directed the petitioners to pay an additional court-fee of Rs.400. This order was passed on the 14th March, 1947 and ten days’ time was given for payment of the deficit court-fee. The suit stood adjourned to the 24th March, 1947. On that day the suit was called and as the petitioners had not paid the deficit court-fee, the plaint was rejected. The Revision Petition before us is against the order, dated 24th March, 1947, rejecting the plaint. Under section 2(2), Civil Procedure Code, an order rejecting a plaint shall be deemed to be a decree. It was therefore open to the petitioners to file a regular appeal against that order. As an appeal was competent, it follows that the Revision Petition is not maintainable and must therefore be dismissed on this ground.

Mr. Venkatarama Sastri contended that though the Revision Petition as filed purported to be against the order of 24th March, 1947, rejecting the plaint, it must be deemed to have been really filed to revise the earlier order of the 14th March, 1947, directing payment of additional court-fee. He relied on the ruling of the Full Bench in Murthiraju v. Subbaraju1, which held that the Revision Petition would lie to the High Court when a Subordinate Court has held that a plaint has been inadequately stamped. In that case, however, there was no order formally rejecting the plaint before the Revision Petition was filed against the order directing the plaintiff to pay an additional court-fee. It was urged before the learned Judges in that case that the petitioner before them could have waited till a consequential order was passed by the lower Court rejecting the plaint on non-payment of the additional court-fee demanded and then filed an appeal. But the learned Judges observed:

“The mere fact that an appeal would lie later from the consequential order passed by the Subordinate Judge if the stamp-fee were not paid was no ground for refusing to entertain the petition.” The decision of the Full Bench is therefore no authority in support of the position that a Revision Petition would lie against an order demanding an additional court fee even after a consequential order has been passed by the Court rejecting the plaint, because the additional court-fee demanded had not been paid. Learned counsel was unable to cite any decided case in which it has been held that even after an order had been passed rejecting a plaint, an appealable order, the party aggrieved could prefer a Revision Petition against the earlier order demanding the additional court-fee. In our opinion, to allow a Civil Revision Petition to be preferred in such circumstances would be against the well established principles of procedural law. In Ratnavelu Pillai v. Varadaraja Pillai1, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., made an observation that if the order directing payment of additional court-fee was not complied with and it was followed by an order dismissing the suit, a Revision Petition would not be maintainable, but the remedy was only by way of an appeal against the decree. We agree with this observation which no doubt was made obiter in that case.

The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed with costs.

Viswanatha Sastri, J.-I respectfully agree. An erroneous order of the lower Court demanding additional court-fee is revisable by the High Court at the instance of the plaintiff on the ground that there is a refusal to exercise the jurisdiction ve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document