Interference under Article 227 can only occur on jurisdictional errors or manifest improprieties.

1. In this petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed following relief:

“1. To quash the later part of the order dated 08.05.2018 (Annexure - P / 1) relating to allowing of application under O.18 R.16 read with S.151 CPC (Annex. - P - 10) as also order dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure - P - 12) may be quashed.

2. To call for the records of the civil suit on the basis of which impugned orders are passed for the kind perusal of Hon'ble High Court.

3. Any other writ / direction or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of petitioners.”

2. This matter was heard to some extent yesterday also. Shri Prashant Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the Court below by impugned order directed to pay the reaming Court fees which was paid by the plaintiff at a later point of time, in any case, before allowing the application under O.18 R.16 CPC .

3. Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner added his arguments today by contending that as long as Court fees is not paid, there was no suit instituted in the eye of law. Accordingly, in absence of the suit, the question of entertaining an application under O.18 R.16 of CPC does not arise.

4. Per contra, Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior counsel contended that valuation part of the impugned order dated 08.05.2018 is not subject matter of challenge, yet in view of 2014 (5) SCC 603 (Polamrasetti Manikyam and another Vs. Teegala Venkata Ramayya and another), valuation mentioned in the relevant document is determinative and the Court below has not committed any error in deciding the valuation part on the basis of valuation mentioned in the gift - deed. Reliance is placed on 2007 (2) MPLJ 524 (Shadab Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. Parita Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit) to contend that question of valuation cannot be decided even as a preliminary issue. This question can be gone into while deciding the suit finally.

5. Shri Kishore Shrivastava by placing reliance on 1973 (2) SCC 567 ( Jugal Kishore Vs. Dhanno Devi ) submits that once Court fees is paid, even belatedly, the suit from the date of its institution will be treated as a lawfully instituted suit and, therefore, once remaining Court fees has been paid on 05.06.2018, the instant civil suit shall be treated to be instituted correctly / lawfully from the date of its institution. AIR 1978 Patna 218 (Ram Dhir Prasad and another Vs. Ram Sewak Lal ad others) is relied upon to contend that the language employed in O.18 R.16 CPC is wide enough which permits the Court to record evidence “at any time after institution of suit”.

6. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

8. As noticed, the valuation part of the impugned order dated 08.05.2018 is not called in question in this petition. The limited relief claimed is relating to the part of the impugned order whereby application preferred under O.18 R.16 CPC was allowed by the Court below. Thus, the question of entertaining arguments on the valuation part of the order does not arise. The only triable question is : whether on the date application under O.18 R.16 was allowed, there existed a suit in the eye of law and, therefore, said application could not have been entertained. This point is no more res integra. In Jugal Kishore (supra), the Apex Court opined as under:

“In law, therefore, there was no rejection of the plaint in the suit and, there