1. This revision has been preferred against the orders dated 17.9.2012 passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ACJM, Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar, by which issues were framed, and issue no. 4 relating to valuation was decided in negative.
2. None is present to press this revision.
3. From perusal of record, it is found that in original suit no. 1725/2011 (Sukhdev Singh Vs. Smt. Santosh Kumar and others), the trial court had framed seven issues on 17.9.2012, in which issue no. 4 was as to whether the suit is under-valued and the court fees paid is insufficient. Thereafter same day the trial court had decided this issue no. 4 in negative. This portion of order, by which issue no. 4 relating to valuation was decided in negative, has been challenged through present revision.
4. Impugned order had been passed by the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) which had unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore it is immaterial as to whether suit is undervalued or not, because the said court will have jurisdiction to decide the same irrespective of its valuation. Since any valuation of such property will be within jurisdiction of trial court, therefore valuation of the suit is not going to have any effect on pecuniary jurisdiction of trial court. Therefore the suit's alleged undervaluation will not prejudice the revisionist.
5. The Court Fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and a contesting party cannot use it as a tool to obstruct the trial. It is difficult to understand what grievance the defendant can make by seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate court-fee on his plaint. Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. Even if the defendant believes honestly that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff, still he has no right to move the superior court against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint.
6. It is settled legal position that the payment of court fees is always a matter between the State on one hand and the plaintiff on other; and the defendants have no legal right to challenge the insufficiency of the court fees. Court has always right to look into the matter of sufficiency of court fee, for protecting the right of State, but the defendant has no right to interfere in such matter.
7. In view of above the revisionist has no right or locus standii to agitate this matter by revision or by any way. His revision is liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. Relevant portion of Section 115, as amended by C.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) Act, 2003, reads as under :
"115. Revision-
(1) - - -
(2) - - -
(3) The superior court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where,-
i. the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or ii. the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.
(4) - - -"
9. In present case if impugned order is allowed to stand, then in all probabilities, there is no chance of finally deciding suit or any right and also there is no probability of occasioning any injustice or irreparable injury to any party. In such a case the impugned order does not affect adversely the legal right of any party. Therefore, present revision cannot succeed.
10. For the reasons discussed above, this revision is dismissed.
11. This order be communicated to the trial court immediately with direction to expedite disposal of the original suit.
Order Date :- 16.11.2016 SR