This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, who are defendants 22 to 24 among the 28 defendants in O.S. No.118 of 2013, against the order, dated 29.04.2014, in I.A. No.958 of 2013 in O.S. No.118 of 2013 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. The petitioners herein filed interlocutory application I.A.No.958 of 2013 in the pending suit, in support of their written statement contest to decide, under Section 11(2) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee Act read with Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on insufficiency of Court Fee payable and or to reject the plaint for insufficient payment of the Court Fee in saying that the plaintiffs instead of valuing the suit under Section 34(1) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee Act for ad volerum undervalued under Section 34(2) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee Act only with fixed court fees as if in Joint possession.

3. Undisputedly, it is the suit for partition. The trial Court in answering I.A. No.958 of 2013, by order, dated 29.04.2014, after hearing both sides, running in 12 paras, referring to 46 exhibits on behalf of defendants 22 to 24 and 15 exhibits on behalf of plaintiffs 1 to 4, concluded that the plaint is liable to be rejected is untenable from the payment of fixed court fees in claiming Joint Possession and that any sufficiency or not of the Court Fee is to be decided during trial on establishing any such claim of the defendants of plaintiffs not in possession and are liable to pay ad volerum court fees; by framing any specific issue to answer after full fledged trial and any insufficiency of Court Fee is not directly entitles rejection of the plaint as sought for without affording opportunity including from the defence of plaintiffs not in possession and defendants also executed sales in favour of the third parties. Impugning the same, the present revision is filed with the contentions in the grounds of revision that the trial Court in the impugned order, did not apply its mind to the clear averments in the written statement paras 2 and 3 in pages 4 to 6 of dispossession of the plaintiffs to say there is no any joint possession in support of the plaint plea and they are bound to pay ad valorem Court Fee and have no right to cause loss to the State Exchequer by paying fixed Court Fee and the trial Court erred at the factual matrix and the propositions relied gives only conclusion for allowing the application.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

5. Now the points for consideration are,

01. Whether the impugned order of the lower court is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

02. To what result?

6. Point– I:

It is to be kept in mind in deciding the revision the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India as laid down by the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rao (2003(6) SCC 682) guidelines at para 38 that mere error in non application of law or erroneous application of law or ill appreciation of law is not suffice, but must be shown of failure of Justice therefrom as resulted as reiterated in Shalini Shyam Setty v. R.S.Patil (in SLP (Civil) No. 7445 of 2009, dated 23.07.2010). It is important to note therefrom that irrespective of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee Act, 1956, particularly Sub Section 2, enables defendants to raise a plea regarding the sufficiency of Court Fee it obligates the Court to consider the plea of the defendants. Here so far as the numbering stage is concerned, on sufficiency of Court Fee as laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court, in Chillakuru Chenchuram Reddy v. Kanupuru Chenchurami Reddy (ILR (1969) AP 1042), that at the initial stage, the plaint averments and the documents in support of the plaint are only decisive and after appearance, pleadings of the defendants that also to be considered in deciding the sufficiency of Court Fee. In fact the above Full Bench ex