Court confirmed that a plaintiff not a party to a document need not seek its cancellation nor pay court fees based on its value.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - defendant No.10 challenging the order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.1264 of 2017 in O.S.No.291 of 2017 dated 22.04.2019.

2. I.A.No.1264 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner - defendant No.10 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC to direct the plaintiffs to value the suit on the outstanding balance of Rs.18,77,85,093.20 ps., and to pay the proper Court fee on the said amount, and in case of failure, to reject the plaint.

3. The petitioner - defendant No.10 was a banking company incorporated under the Company's Act, 1956 represented by its Managing Director. The Branch Manager of A.S.Rao Nagar Branch of the petitioner bank filed an affidavit in support of the petition stating that the suit was filed by the plaintiff against defendants 1 to 4 seeking the relief of declaration of various sale deeds as illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from transferring or conveying or creating any third party right on the schedule properties. The defendant No.9 created an equitable mortgage in plaint "C" schedule property by depositing relevant title deeds namely development agreement - cum - General Power of Attorney (for short "GPA") bearing document No.4460 of 2007, original additional supplementary development agreement dated 22.07.2015, original supplementary development agreement dated 19.03.2015 and original registered sale deed bearing document No.2829 of 2016 with the defendant bank and confirmed the same by executing registered Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds dated 15.03.2016 bearing document No.3276 of 2016 and extension of mortgage by way of a memorandum dated 05.08.2016. Thus, a valid mortgage was created on the plaint "C" schedule property as security to the loan facility availed by him of Rs.20,00,00,000/- in total as on the date of filing of the suit i.e. by 31.03.2017. The plaintiff was challenging the said mortgage in the above suit and prayed for declaration of the sale deed document No.2829 of 2016, memorandum of deposit of title deeds, etc., as illegal, null and void, etc. Since the mortgage created on plaint "C" schedule property was offered as security for the loan facility of Rs.20.00 crores and the outstanding amount due and payable under the said loan facility as on the date of the suit was Rs.18,77,85,093.20ps., the plaintiff ought to have valued the relief of declaring the sale deed document No.2829 of 2016 and memorandum of deposit of title deed bearing document No.3276 of 2016 as null and void on the outstanding amount due and payable. However, the plaintiff erroneously and wrongly valued the suit for the reliefs including the said relief at Rs.1,00,000/- only and paid Court fee of Rs.3,426/- only, which was illegal and against the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (for short "the Act", 1956).

4. The respondent - plaintiff filed a counter affidavit in the said I.A. contending that the documents such as additional supplementary development agreement dated 22.07.2015 and original supplementary development agreement dated 19.03.2015 referred by the petitioner claimed to have been deposited by respondent - defendant No.9 were rank forged and fabricated, as the respondent - plaintiff never executed such documents. The said documents would need to be put to test of authenticity by referring the same to expert study or forensic examination. The petitioner - defendant No.10 bank should take steps to ascertain the truth of the documents and to initiate proceedings under criminal law against its alleged borrowers,