Ratlam Bone Mills vs State or M. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
Kochatta for applicant; B. L. Pavecha Government Advocate for non-applicants.

Headnote:(1) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 7 (iv) (c) and Art. 17 (1) -- suit for declaration against attachment -- proper Court fees payable -- what if -- Land Revenue code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Sch. II, R. 24 (i) and (2).
        (2) Lana Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Suit. II, R. 14 (1) and (2) -- attachment under -- R. 24 (1) -- proper Court-fees for suit contemplated under R. 24 (2) -- what is -- Court-fees Act, 1970 -- S. 7 (iv) (c) and Art 17 (1).
        Relevant facts for deciding this question are as follows. Non-applicant No. 3, Ratlam Bone and Fertiliser, Company, Ratlam was liable to pay arrears of sales tax, The recovery officer acting under the provisions of rule 24 (1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, Schedule-I attached the plant and machinery for recovery of sales tax arrears. Plaintiff-applicant filed an objection under rule 24 (2) of the M. P. land Revenue Code, Schedule-I claiming that the attached property belonged to the plaintiff firm and was not liable for attachment and sale for recovery of arrears of sales tax outstanding against non-applicant No. 3. The recovery officer (non-applicant No. 2) rejected the objection and directed sale of the attached property, plaintiff-applicant, therefore, brought a suit for declaration that the plaintiff-firm was the owner of the attached property and the same was not liable for attachment. Plaintiff also claimed an injunction to restrain non-applicants 1 and 2 from proceeding with the sale of the attached property.
        The arrears of sales-tax for which the property was attached amounted to Rs. 27,000/-. However, plaintiff-applicant valued the suit for valuation and Court fee @ Rs. 300/- and, paid a fixed Court of Rs. 30/- under Article 17 (1) of Schedule-II of the Court Fees Act.
        Non-applicants 1 and 2 raised an objection about the valuation made by the plaintiff-applicant and Court-fees paid on the plaint. According to the non-applicants, ad valorem Court-fee was payable on the sum of Rs, 27,000/- in respect of which plaintiff-applicant had claimed declaration and consequential relief of injunction.
        Learned lower Court upheld the contention raised by the defendant-non-applicant and held that ad-valorem Court-fees was payable by the plaintiff-applicant and directed it to pay the deficit Court-fees. Aggrieved plaintiff has come up in revision before this Court.
        Held : The present suit clearly fell within Article 17 (1) of the Court-fees Act. Merely because the plaintiff-applicant added a prayer for injunction the nature of the suit did not change. This prayer for injunction, in fact was not consequential. Actually, the prayer was redundant and the operation of injunction in a case like this was automatic. There are several decisions of this Court on the point. In Dinker v. Ratansingh (AIR 1938 Nagpur 300), it was held that a suit under Order 21, rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure was in substance, a suit for setting aside the executing Courts order and relief for possession was implicit. If such a relief was separately prayed for in such suit, it did not necessitate levy of Court-fee on ad-valorem basis.
        A suit under rule 24 (2) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code Schedule-I is analogous to a suit under rule 63, Order 21 or rule 103, Order 21 Code of Civil Procedure. The fact that toe plaintiff-applicant had also sought the relief of injunction and not alter the basic complexions of the suit.
        For all these reasons, I hold that the Court-fees paid by the plaintiff-applicant was proper and adequate and it was not liable to pay ad-valocem Court-fees under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act. AIR 1938 Nag. 300 1972 JLJ 818 and 1971 MPLJ SN 94 relied on. AIR 1973 SC 2384 distinguished. Revision allowed.