Court fee disputes are fundamentally between the plaintiff and the state; defendants cannot appeal court fee decisions post initial pleadings.

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the Court of the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Thrissur, holding that the court fee paid by the plaintiffs under Section 37(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 , is correct, the defendants 3 to 5 have filed this original petition. The respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs and the respondents 4 to 13 are the defendants 1, 2, 6 to 13 in the suit.

2. The petitioners' case, in a nutshell, relevant for the determination of the original petition is: the respondents 1 to 3 have filed the suit for a decree of partition and separate possession. The petitioners filed a written statement and an additional written statement, inter alia, contending that the valuation and court fee paid are incorrect. The court below considered Issue No.(6), which pertains to the payment of court fee, and has passed the impugned Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 order is erroneous and illegal. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.M.R.Venugopal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. A.Ranjith Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and 6.

4. The point is whether there is any error or illegality in Ext.P3 order passed by the court below. 5. The crux of the dispute in Ext.P3 order relates to the payment of court fee by the respondents 1 to 3 on the plaint. The court below, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, arrived at a conclusion that the valuation of the plaint and the court fee paid by the respondents 1 to 3 are correct.

6. In Ratnavarmaraja v. Vimala [ AIR 1961 SC 1299 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphatically held thus:

“2. The Court Fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action. By recognising that the defendant was entitled to contest the valuation of the properties in dispute as if it were a matter in issue between him and the plaintiff and by entertaining petitions preferred by the defendant to the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction against the order adjudging court fee payable on the plaint, all progress in the suit for the trial of the dispute on the merits has been effectively frustrated for nearly five years. We fail to appreciate what grievance the defendant can make by seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate court fee on his plaint. Whether proper court fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. How by an order relating to the adequacy of the court fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may feel aggrieved, it is difficult to appreciate. Again, the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by clauses (a) to (c) thereof and may be invoked on the ground of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Subordinate Court or assumption of jurisdiction which the court does not possess or on the ground that the court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The defendant who may believe and even honestly that proper court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court fee payable on the plaint. But counsel for the defendant says that by Act 14 of 1955 enacted by the Madras Legislature which applied to the suit in question, the defendant has been invested with a right not only to contest in the trial court the issue whether adequate court fee has been paid by the plaintiff, but also to move the High Court in revision if an order contrary to his submission is passed by the court. Reliance in support of that contention is placed upon sub-section (2) of Section 12. That sub- section, insofar as it is material,p