Transfer of un-numbered suit does not warrant for payment of ad-valorem court fee.

1. This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 16.12.1997 made in O.S.SR.No. 11911 of 1996 by the Court of VI Additional Judge, incharge of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras thereby directing the petitioners to pay the additional court fee on the suit filed by the petitioners herein.

2. The petitioners presented their suit before the High Court, Madras, affixing the court-fee as required under the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Original Side, 1956 and the same had been returned for certain compliance. But prior to re-presenting the same, the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act (Act 28 of 1995) got introduced thereby enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court as a result of which the High Court not only transferred all such suits on account of conferment of jurisdiction on the City Civil Court by operation of law but also directed the petitioners to present their suit before the City Civil Court, when the said suit of the petitioners got re-presented before the High Court a second time and hence the petitioners presented their suit before the jurisdiction court that is the Seventh Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and the said court in its impugned order directed the petitioners to pay the additional court-fee as per Sec.22 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, contending thereby that “this suit was filed in the High court and returned to this court as per Act 28 of 1995. Thereafter, this suit is filed in this Court. It is argued on the part of the plaintiff that the court-fee paid on the plaint in the High Court would be sufficient. In support thereof, the decision rendered in S.R.Narayana Ayyar v. Mavalathapa Veerankutti S.R.Narayana Ayyar v. Mavalathapa Veerankutti S.R.Narayana Ayyar v. Mavalathapa Veerankutti, (1958)1 MLJ. 264 wascited and argued. Whether the plaint of the plaintiffs and the decision cited have to be accepted, it would be found that the suit is not numbered and transferred to this Court. If the suit is so numbered and transferred to this Court, then the arguments of the plaintiffs would be an acceptable one. But this Court determines that when the suit was not numbered and sent to this Court, court-fee should be paid on the amount claimed in the plaint under Sec.22 of the Court-Fees Act. In the result, it is ordered that additional court-fee should be paid by the plaintiff and a months time is granted to pay the same.”

3. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, the petitioners have come forward to file the above civil revision petition on grounds as offered in the memorandum of civil revision petition such as:

(i) that the order directing to pay the additional court-fee is illegal, improper and is fraught with material irregularity and is vitiated by failure to interpret the law properly and to appreciate the effect of the presentation of the plaint before the given forum in its proper perspective; (ii) that the learned judge having appreciated the decision relied upon by the plaintiff to be appropriate has made a distinction between a suit numbered and a suit yet to be numbered directing the additional court-fee to be paid; (iii) that the court below has failed to see that once the plaint is “presented”, the suit is “instituted” and thence it ‘is transferred to the City Civil Court only by virtue of the provision of the Act, which enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court; (iv) that the court below is wrong in its thinking that the return of the plaint to present it to the proper court does not amount to transfer under the Act in the present case; (v) that the court below has lost sight of the fact that originally when the plaint was presented, the High Court alone had jurisdiction pecuniarily and after assigning diary number, the High Court returned the same for certain compliances and when the second representation was made, the Registry