The main legal point established is that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to correct the valuation or pay additional stamp duty, and the Notification No. 358 provides relief from anomalous fees leviable under the Court-fees Act.

Ramesam, J.

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of East Tanjore at Mayavaram dismissing O. S. No. 40 of 1921 on the ground that the proper Court-fee has not been paid. The order rejecting the plaint could have been passed only under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P. C. The suit was brought by the plaintiff claiming to be the reversioner, under the Hindu law, of one Ramaswami Ayyar and he claimed the property after the death of his widow and his daughters. The plaintiff is his daughters son. The suit was filed on the last day allowed by the law of limitation. To some extent this fact seems to have prejudiced the Subordinate Judge against the plaintiff. While we have no particular sympathy with a stale suit, I do not see any reason why one should be prejudiced against the plaintiff on that ground. The plaint was presented on 28th August 1920. It was returned by the office with four requisitions. The fourth is:

Valuation has not been given in respect of all the properties described in the plaint schedules.

2. This was on the 30th August. The plaintiffs pleader re-presented the plaint on 7th September with the note:

Those mentioned in the lots have been amended. Re-presented after amendment.

3. It is now admitted that the first three requisitions have been satisfied, but it is urged for the respondents that the fourth was not. I will discuss this point later on. The office was, however, satisfied with the re-presentation and a note was made "Stamp correct; plaint may be filed". The plaint was then numbered and notices were issued to the defendants. In the written statement a plea was taken that the Court-fee paid is not correct. The Court-fee should have been paid in respect of the suit properties on their market value.

4. An issue was framed:

Has proper Court-fee been paid on the plaint and the suit was adjourned. Before it came on for trial on 30th March 1922, there was a petition by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11, raising various objections to the valuation and the payment of Court-fee made by the plaintiff and a counter-petition was filed; and the petition was posted to 26th April. On that day the plaintiff wanted a commission. So the case was adjourned to 20th July. On 20th July the plaintiff said that he did not want the commission and that he would adduce evidence. The matter was adjourned to 10th August. On that day some arguments were heard. The same day the plaintiff filed a petition for amendment. The amendment was refused and the plaint was rejected on 21st August.

5. Under Order 7, Rule 11, a plaint cannot be rejected unless the plaintiff is given an opportunity to correct the valuation within a time fixed by the Court where the relief is under-valued, or the plaintiff is given an opportunity to supply the requisite stamp paper within the time fixed by the Court where the plaint is filed on an insufficient stamp. It is contended by Mr. Bhashyam Ayyangar, vakil for the respondent, that Clause (b) applies and that an opportunity was given to the plaintiff to correct his valuation but he did not avail himself of the opportunity. In support of this contention he relies on the fourth requisition itself which does not show in respect of what property valuation was not given. No details were mentioned in it. The respondents vakil no doubt filed a list of details in the petition of 1922. This is list D, but there is nothing to show that these were matters intended by the Court when the plaint was returned on 30th August 1920. It is likely that they were not, because the plaint was accepted on re-presentation. It may be that, when there is a clear omission in the original plaint, and the Court demanded the plaintiff to rectify the defect and returned the plaint, and the plaintiff re-presented the plaint without rectifying it, the mere fact that the Court accepted the plaint over-looking the plaintiffs failure to rectify does not estop the Court from rejecting the plaint some time afterwar