[1.0] Present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the petitioner herein – Inspecting Officer (Court Fees), Saurashtra and Kutch Area, Rajkot to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 29.04.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gondal in Court Fee Reference and by holding that the plaintiffs have rightly paid the court fees. [2.0] That the original plaintiffs have instituted the suit before the learned trial Court for declaration and permanent injunction against the Jetpur Nagarpalika i.e. challenging the bye laws of Jetpur Municipality pertaining to house tax made applicable from 01.01.1982 to 01.04.1992. That the original plaintiffs have also consequently challenged the distress warrants or demand notices. As the original plaintiffs have paid the court fees of Rs.240 only by putting the valuation of suit to Rs.2,400/ only and did not pay the valuation considering the individual notices/bills and did not pay individual / separate court fees by each plaintiff on the bill amount / distress warrants, the applicant herein – Court Fee Inspector made Court Fee Reference No.8 of 1992 in the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No.141 of 1992 before the learned trial Court under Section 18 and Article 7 Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act by submitting to determine the proper valuation and direct the plaintiffs to pay the deficit court fees by submitting that the suit is not properly valuated with the result the proper court fees have not been paid. That after hearing the plaintiffs, by impugned order the learned trial Court has dismissed the said court fee reference and has held that the plaintiffs have paid the proper court fees observing that if the relief clauses in para 11(i) to (ix) are read in between the lines nowhere the plaintiffs have challenged the bill amount of the house tax as well as the education cess and have challenged the legality and validity of the house tax and the authority of defendant No.1 etc. Therefore, it was held that Section 6(4)(g) of the Bombay Court Fees Act would be applicable and not Section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Court Fees Act as contended by the Court Fees Inspector and consequently held that the plaintiffs have put proper valuation and have paid the proper court fees.
[2.1] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court in holding that the plaintiffs have put proper valuation and have paid the proper court fees, the petitioner herein – Court Fees Inspector has preferred the present Civil Revision Application.
[3.0] Shri Kabir Hathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the applicant/petitioner has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding that the plaintiffs have put the proper valuation of Rs.2,400/ and have paid the proper court fees. It is submitted that as such the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the reliefs sought in the plaint. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that under the guise of challenging the imposition of the house tax the plaintiffs have also prayed to quash and set aside the distress warrants as well as notices served upon the individual plaintiffs with respect to individual properties and plaintiffs have also prayed to quash and set aside the same and therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have held that the respective plaintiffs were required to pay the court fees on the amount mentioned in the individual distress warrants / house tax which were sought to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding that the case would not fall under Section 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Court Fees Act and the case would fall under Section 6(4)(g) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Application and directing the plaintiffs to put the proper valuation of the suit considering the total amount as per the distress warrants / notices which were sought to be challenged and accordingly to pay the deficit court fees within stipulated time failing which the suit would be dismissed.
[3.1] Though served nobody appears on behalf of the original plaintiff. Shri Avinash Thakkar, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Jetpur Nagarpalika and has supported the case of the petitioner.
[4.0] Heard Shri Hathi, learned AGP on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Avinash Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Jetpur Nagarpalika. At the outset it is required to be noted that the original plaintiff's have instituted the suit before the learned trial Court for a declaration challenging the bye laws of Jetpur Municipality pertaining to house tax made applicable from 01.01.1982 to 01.04.1992. The plaintiffs have also challenged and prayed to quash and set aside the distress warrants/demand notices. It may be true that the original plaintiffs have prayed for declaration to declare the same as unconstitutional and null and void. However, consequent relief which is sought is to quash and set aside the said house tax / distress warrants and demand notices which are served upon the respective original plaintiffs with respect to their individual properties. Under the circumstances, as such the plaintiffs were required to put proper valuation on the total amount of distress warrants / demand notices and also were required to pay the Court fees on the amount mentioned in the respective distress warrants and demand notices served upon the respective individual plaintiffs. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court as materially erred in rejecting the Court fee reference and by holding that the original plaintiffs have paid the proper Court fees and have put the proper valuation. It appears that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated and considered the fact that by clever drafting and asking the prayers in such a way that the respective plaintiffs are not required to pay the separate court fees. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be dismissed.
[5.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Civil Revision Application succeeds. Impugned order dated 29.04.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gondal below Exh.23 in Regular Civil Suit No.141 of 1992 is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that respective plaintiffs are required to pay the proper court fees on the total amount of distress warrants / demand notices served upon individual plaintiffs with respect to their individual properties. The learned trial Court is now directed to recalculate the amount of court fees accordingly within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the present order and call upon the plaintiffs to pay the deficit court fees accordingly within stipulated time as it deems fit failing which the necessary consequences of nonpayment of deficit court fees as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, more particularly, Order VII Rule 11 shall follow. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Registry is directed to send the writ of this order to the learned trial Court immediately.
(M.R. Shah, J.) menon