Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
Mannaur Ansari And Others - Petitioners
Vs.
Juved Ahmad And Others - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. -2406 of 2019
Decided On : 14-05-2019
Court Fees Act,1870 – U.P. Amendment Act,2012 – Section 7(iv-A) – Petition has filed challenging impugned order passed by Civil Judge in Original as the order passed by Additional District Judge in Civil Revision – Held, since matter of payment of Court fees is a matter between plaintiff and Court, the defendant (revisionist) has no right or locus standii to agitate this matter by revision or by any way, facts and circumstances of case as this suit is of year it is provided tha Court below shall expedite hearing of the suit and decide the same as expeditiously as possible by fixing short dates – Writ petition dismissed. (Para 11,15,17)
Facts of the case:
Petition has filed challenging impugned order passed by Civil Judge in Original as the order passed by Additional District Judge in Civil Revision.
Findings of the court:
Since matter of payment of Court fees is a matter between plaintiff and Court, the defendant (revisionist) has no right or locus standi to agitate this matter by revision or by any way, facts and circumstances of case as this suit is of year it is provided tha Court below shall expedite hearing of the suit and decide the same as expeditiously as possible by fixing short dates.
Result : Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.12.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Mohammdabad Ghazipur in Original Suit No. 298 of 1997 as the as the order dated 31.5.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Ghazipur in Civil Revision No. 2 of 2012.
3. By order dated 17.12.2011 the trial Court has decided the issue no. 3 regarding valuation and Court fees against the plaintiffs (petitioners herein). The valuation of the suit was fixed at Rs. 1,99,000/-on the basis of sale deed of the year 1994 regarding which relief of declaration that the same may be declared as void and ineffective has been prayed for. The plaintiffs (petitioners herein) were directed to pay the Court fees accordingly. Revision against the same was also rejected by the Court below on the ground that once the relief is being claimed regarding declaration of a deed as null and void, without holding the same , the declaratory relief as sought cannot be granted, hence the Court fees is to be paid accordingly.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that on 17.12.2017 itself Amin's report was approved by the trial Court wherein the valuation of the property was given at Rs. 33,000/-, therefore, valuation cannot be assessed more than that.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
6. Amin's report may have been approved by the trial Court, however, the relief claimed is in respect of the sale deed dated 14.9.1994 and as such, the valuation has been fixed on the basis of the same.
7. A reference may be made to a judgment of Ho'ble Apex Court in Shailendra Bhardwaj and others vs. Chandra Pal and another, (2013) 1 SCC 579, paragraphs 7, 8, 9 10 and 11 whereof quoted as under:-
“7. We may also indicate that the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 in terms of which the suits have to be valued for the purpose of the Court Fees Act has also been amended vide U.P. Act 7 of 1939 (w.e.f. 16-7-1939) and the difference in both the Acts are given below:
| Suits Valuation Act 1887 (Central Act) | Suits Valuation Act |
| “4. Valuation of relief in certain suits relating to land not to exceed the value of the land – Where a suit mentioned in the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7, Para IV, or Schedule II, Article 17, relates to land or an interest in land of which the value has been determined by rules under last foregoing section, the amount at which for purposes of jurisdiction the relief sought in the suit is valued shall not exceed the value of the land or interest as determined by those rules.” | “4. Valuation of certain suits for the purposes of jurisdiction – Suits mentioned in Paras IV (a) IVA |
8. On comparing the abovementioned provisions, it is clear that Article 17 (iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is applicable in cases where the plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory decree without any consequential relief and there is no other provision under the Act for payment of fee relating to relief claimed. Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act makes it clear that this article is applicable in cases where the plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaratory decree without consequential reliefs and there is no other provision under the Act for payment of fee relating to relief claimed. If there is no other provision under the Court Fees Act in case of a suit involving cancellation or adjudging/declaring void or voidable a will or sale deed on the question of payment of court fees, then Article 17(iii) of Schedule II shall be applicable. But if such relief is covered by any other provisions of the Court Fees Act, then Article 17(iii) of Schedule II will not be applicable. On a comparison between the Court Fees Act and
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
