ORDER :- This is a defendants application in revision. The plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment. They alleged that one Jagannath was a tenant-at-will of the land in dispute. He had died and the tenancy had been determined on account of his death. The defendants were his executors and were in possession of the land. The plaintiff wanted that they should be ejected and also claimed mesne profits from them. The plaintiffs valued the relief for possession under S. 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court-fees Act.

2. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded inter alia that the suit was undervalued and the court-fee paid was insufficient. They contended that the suit was a simple suit for possession against persons who were not admitted to be tenants. The plaintiffs were therefore bound to value the suit at the market value of the property under S. 7 (v) of the Court-fees Act. If they valued the suit at that figure it would be found that the court-fee paid was insufficient and the suit was not triable by the Court in which it had been filed.

3. The Munsif who was dealing with the suit did not accept the contention of the defendants and held that the plaintiffs had correctly valued the suit under S. 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court-fees Act. The court-fee paid by them was, therefore, sufficient, the suit had been properly valued and the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. Against this order the present application in revision has been filed and it is contended by the learned counsel that the view taken by the learned Munsif is not correct in law.

5. A preliminary objection was raised that no revision lies as the order sought to be revised does not amount to a case decided within the meaning of S. 115, C. P. C. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties I have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objection is well-founded and must be allowed to prevail. In this view it is not necessary to consider the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant on merits.

6. The main point which the learned Munsif has decided is that the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs on the plaint is sufficient. The learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to cite any case of this Court in which it has been held that such a decision amounts to a case decided within the meaning of the term as used in S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gupta and Co. v. Kripa Ram Brothers, 1934 All LJ 381 : (AIR 1934 All 620) (A), held that where the Court had decided that the court-fee paid by a plaintiff was insufficient and had directed him to pay an additional court-fee, there was no case decided and ? revision was entertainable.

7. In a recent case, Abdul Ghani v. Vishunath, 1957 All LJ 105 : (AIR 1957 All 337) (B), a Bench of this Court laid down that : "The question what was the valuation of the property in suit and what was the court-fee payable on the valuation was a question that arose in the suit itself and was not a separate case. Any decision given on the question could not be said to be deciding a case separately from the suit itself and therefore would not be liable to be revised under S. 115, C. P. C."

8. It follows from these decisions that when a question of court-fee is decided and it is held that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient or insufficient no case is decided by the Court and the order is not revisable.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to the case of Ahmadi Begum v. Kulsum Nisa, 1949 All LJ 250: (AIR 1952 All 644) (C). That case is by no means an authority for the proposition that an order determining the sufficiency or insufficiency of court-fee is revisable. On the contrary it was held in that case that no revision lies under S. 115, C. P. G. against an order determining the issue of valuation and court-fee and ordering the plaintiff to pay an additional court-fee. The case of Gupta and Co. v. Kripa Ram Brothers, (A), was referred to and it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document