THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA C.R.P.No.2215 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Since the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the objection of the Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet District at Gajwel (for short, “trial Court”), refusing to register the suit for partition, separate possession and perpetual injunction with respect to the schedule properties, on the account of not paying the required Court fees vide docket order dated 25.04.2024 in O.S.CFR.No.279 of 2024, therefore, there is no need to serve the notice to the respondent, as the suit is not yet registered.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sole reason cited by the learned trial Court in refusing to register the said suit is that the pleadings of the suit refer that the parties are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. Whereas, the documents filed along with the suit show that certain properties are alienated and that the plaintiff is not in possession of the said properties. On such ground, objection was raised by the learned trial Court for paying of fixed Court fee under Section 34(2) of the Telangana Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short, “Act, 1956”) and the said suit was returned for the payment of Court fee under Section 34(1) of the Act, 1956.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the learned counsel for the plaintiff/revision petitioner in the said suit has given explanation to the objections of the learned trial Court, stating that the suit is filed for partition, separate possession and perpetual injunction only. However, the learned trial Court has again refused to register the said suit, solely on the ground that the Court fee paid is insufficient. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A. Divakrupamani and Another Vs A. Sakuntala Devi and Others, 2000 (2) ALD 754. Hence, the revision petitioner requested this Court to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the issue of whether the Court fee is insufficient or not, can be decided at the time of trial and in case the Court fee paid is insufficient, the same may be recovered at the time of passing the decree.

5. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed directing the learned Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet District at Gajwel, to register the suit in O.S.CFR.No.279 of 2024 and dispose of the same, in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to return all the original documents to the petitioner after obtaining Photostat copies of the said documents. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.

_____________________

RENUKA YARA, J Date: 13.08.2025

mvm