JUDGMENT :

P. T. Asha, J.

The only short issue for consideration in the above Civil Revision Petition is whether the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam directing the revision petitioner to pay Court-fees as per Schedule I, Article 4 on an application for grant of Succession Certificate is correct or not or on ad valorem value?

2. The facts in brief are as follows:

The first respondent herein had filed a petition in O.S.No.25 of 2000 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam for issuance of Succession Certificate in respect of the terminal benefits of her adopted father M.Deva. The petitioner had valued the securities at Rs. 2 lakhs and paid a Court fee of Rs. 10/-. After contest, by order dated 16.04.2002 the succession certificate was granted to the first respondent.

3. The Revision Petitioner took this above order on appeal to the Learned Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam and paid a Court fee of Rs. 10/- as per Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

4. The Office of the District Judge returned the papers for amending the decretal order and for paying Court Fees as per schedule 1, Article 4 of Court Fees Act. The revision petitioner without complying with the order of return, represented the same stating that under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act it would suffice that he pays the same Court Fees as paid in the suit. The matter was called in open Court and the revision petitioner herein had submitted authorities in support of his stand that the Court Fee payable was that is the same as the amount paid in the suit. The said argument was rejected by the learned Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam by order dated 08.10.2002 and the revision petitioner was granted a month's time as a last chance.

5. Mr.Gururaj appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner would submit that the provision of Article 4 of Schedule 1 would not apply since the same would come into play only when the duty became payable. He would argue that duty payable under Article 4 of Schedule I is different from the Court Fees payable on a petition on a plaint and Schedule I deals with the duty payable. Whereas, Schedule II deals with Court Fees payable. He would therefore contend that the Court Fees is payable only under Article 11 (k) of the Schedule II of the Court Fees Act.

6. In support of his arguments he would rely upon the judgment State of Maharashtra Vs. Mishrilal Tarachand Lodha and Others, AIR 1964 SC 457 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the pendente lite interest is not challenged, Court Fee need not be paid on the amount of interest.

7. He also relied upon the judgment Diwan Bros Vs. Central Bank of India, Bombay and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 800 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that orders of the Tribunal not be decree under Section 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. Schedule 2 Article 11 of the Court Fees Act would apply and not Schedule 1 of Article I.

8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The reading of the note given to Schedule I of the Court Fees Act would indicate that the Fees details therein is payable after the issue of certificate. Whereas, Schedule II deals with the Court fees that is payable at the time of filing of the petition. The provisions of Schedule II Article 11 of the Court fees Act deals with petition for probate and Letters of Administration. There is no specific provision with regard to petitions for grant of Succession Certificate.

9. In the judgment reported in AIR 1989 Madras Page 111 a division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court has held as follows:

"We have already seen that when the proceeding becomes contentious, it does not become a suit, as such, as contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code, and that it is considered to be a suit only in form and not in substance. Therefore, as long as there is no suit in the eye of law, this provision for payment of court-fee cannot be invoked. We have also noticed that there is no p