Court clarified additional court fees are not required when there is no 'amount in dispute' in a revision petition challenging an order on limitation.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Staff Co-operative Society challenging Exhibit P5 order of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, finding that on failure of the petitioner to remit Legal Benefit Fund (additional court fee) for the amount in dispute in respect of Revision Petition No.118 of 2023, the revision petition must be rejected.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of Exhibit P6 notification dated 16.01.2017, Legal Benefit Fund has to be remitted at the rate of 1% of the amount involved in the dispute only where the original petitions, original application, appeals or revisions mentioned in the notification relate to an ‘amount in dispute’. It is submitted that, Revision Petition No.118 of 2023 is filed challenging Exhibit P3 order, which holds that the claim of the petitioner that the arbitration proceedings initiated by the 2^nd respondent are barred by limitation, cannot be accepted. It is submitted that, a Revision Petition filed challenging such an order cannot be termed as proceeding where there is any ‘amount in dispute’ as the main claim of the 2^nd respondent is pending adjudication before the arbitrator. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that a similar question was considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.40412 of 2024 and connected cases.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent also.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, I am of the view that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that when the Revision Petition is one filed challenging the order holding that the claim of the 2nd respondent was filed within the period of limitation the Revision Petition is not against an order which by itself gives rise to a demand. Thus, no amount can be collected towards Legal Benefit Fund ad valorem. The amount payable towards Legal Benefit Fund would be Rs.100/-. The issue in W.P.(C) No.40412 of 2024 and connected cases was whether such an additional court fees ought to be paid on a petition filed before the Co-operative Tribunal challenging an order dismissing an application for setting aside an ex parte order.

Paragraph No.6 of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.40412 of 2024, reads thus:-

‘’6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Societies, I am of the view that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the additional court fee under Section 76 (1) of the Court Fees Act , on a revision petition filed challenging an order dismissing an application for setting aside the ex parte award cannot be ad valorem as there is no 'amount in dispute'. Thus, the additional court fee payable in terms of Section 76 (1) of the against in a revision petition challenging an order of the Arbitrator refusing to set aside the ex parte order would be Rs.100/-. In addition, the petitioners will also have to pay the fee payable on a revision petition as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 123 of the

1969 Rules.’’

In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am convinced that the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner challenging Exhibit P3 order cannot be termed to be a petition in respect of which additional court fee will have to be paid in terms of Exhibit P6 notification ad valorem on the ‘amount in dispute’ as Exhibit P3 is an order determining that the arbitration proceedings initiated by the 2^nd respondent is within the period of limitation.

Accordingly, the wr