1. The present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-State of Gujarat, through the Inspecting Officer (Court Fees), Rajkot, to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court-learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot below Exh. 12 dated 10/11/1993 in Regular Civil Suit No. 176/1992 in Court Fees Reference No. 23/1992 by which the Court Fees Reference by the Inspecting Officer Court Fees, Rajkot is dismissed.
2. The respondent-original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 176/1992 against the Union of India and others in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Rajkot for the following reliefs;
“17.A. That it be declared that the purported termination of the contract of supply of 26 MT of potatoes dehydrated against A/R of even number dated 15-1-1991 is ultra vires the powers of the Section Officer (Ram Prasad), illegal, null and void ab initio that the said contract is alive, subsisting and binding to the parties including the defendant no. 1.
B. that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant or any other Officer for and on behalf of the defendants from taking any action in furtherance of illegal termination of suit contract be passed in favour of the plaintiff firm and against the defendants”
3. The suit was valued by the respondent-original plaintiff at Rs. 300/- for which the valuation was valued at Rs. 30/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fees and consequently paid/fixed the Court fees at Rs. 30/-. According to the Inspecting Officer, Court Fees, Rajkot, the valuation fixed by the respondent-original plaintiff was not proper and the proper Court fees payable would be Rs. 14,270/-, he made Reference to the learned trial Court vide Exh. 12. It was the case on behalf of the Court Fees Inspector considering Section 12(11) of the Bombay Court Fees Act that the respondent-original plaintiff would be liable to pay the Court fees at Rs. 14,270/-.
4. The said application was opposed by the respondent- original plaintiff by filing the objections. It was the case on behalf of the respondent-original plaintiff that as the suit was for declaration and permanent injunction only, the valuation done by the respondent-original plaintiff for Rs. 300/- is just and proper and consequently held the amount of Court fees at Rs. 30/- is to be paid by the respondent-original plaintiff. The learned trial Court accepted the case on behalf of the respondent-original plaintiff and held that as the suit filed by the respondent-original plaintiff is only for declaration and permanent injunction the valuation done by the respondent- original plaintiff is proper and consequently held that the Court fees paid by the respondent-original plaintiff is proper and the learned trial Court dismissed the Court Fee Reference No. 25/1992.
4.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court below Exh. 12 in Regular Civil Suit No. 176/1992 in Court Fee Reference No. 25/1992, the applicant-State of Gujarat, through the Inspecting Officer (Court Fees), Rajkot, has directly preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Ms. Rita Chandarana, learned AGP has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the Court Fee Reference holding that the valuation put by the respondent-original plaintiff is proper at Rs. 30/-. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated and considered the consequences of granting the declaration and permanent injunction sought in the plaint. It is submitted that if the learned trial Court would have properly considered the consequences of granting the declaration and permanent injunction, if at all the same would have been granted, in that case, the learned trial Court would not have passed such an impugned order. It is submitted that considering the consequences of granting the declaration and permanent injunction as prayed, if at all the same would have been granted, the respondent-original plaintiff was required to put the valuation of the contract amount i.e. 46 tons of potatoes at the rate of Rs. 41/- per kg. It is submitted that consequently the respondent-original plaintiff was required to pay the Court fees of Rs. 14,300/- and as the respondent- original plaintiff had paid the Court fees of Rs. 30/- only the respondent-original plaintiff was liable to pay/deposit the Court fee of Rs. 14,270-/- as per the provisions of the Bombay Prevention Act. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Application and allow the application, Exh. 12 i.e Court Fee Reference No. 25/1992 and direct the respondent-original plaintiff to pay/deposit the Court Fees of Rs.14270/-.
6. The present Civil Revision Application is opposed by Shri Sandeep Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-original plaintiff. It is submitted that considering the fact the suit filed by the respondent-original plaintiff was only for declaration and permanent injunction and no further consequential reliefs have been sought, the learned trial Court has not committed any error and/or illegality in holding that the suit valued by the respondent-original plaintiff for Rs. 300/- and consequently the payment of Rs. 30/- towards the Court Fees is just and proper. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. reported in 2010 AIR SCW 3308 in support of his prayer to dismiss the present Civil Revision Application.
6.1. Shri Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-original plaintiff has submitted that as the reliefs, which have been sought in the plaint, is not susceptible, the suit is rightly valued at Rs. 300/- which was for declaration and permanent injunction only.
7. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the prayer, which is sought in the plaint. From the averments made in the plaint, it appears that the respondent-original plaintiff was given the contract of supply of 26 tons of potatoes (dehydrated) at the rate of Rs. 46 per kg. It is the case on behalf of the respondent-original plaintiff that after the said contract was given to the respondent-original plaintiff the same was terminated illegally by the applicant-original defendant and, therefore, he instituted the suit for declaration that the termination of contract of supply of 26 tons of potato (dehydrated) be declared as illegal, null and void and the said contract is alive and binding to the parties, including original defendant no. 1. The respondent-original plaintiff has also prayed for decree of permanent injunction restraining the applicant-original defendant from taking any action in furtherance of illegality of termination of the contract. It cannot be disputed that if ultimately the respondent-original plaintiff succeeds in the suit and the declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for is granted, consequences would be to revive the contract, which was terminated, which was for supply of 20 tons of potato (dehydrated) at the rate of Rs. 41/- per kg. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the relief, which is sought by the respondent-original plaintiff, is not susceptible to monetary relief. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has materially erred in dismissing the Court Fees Reference holding the valuation put by the respondent- original plaintiff at Rs. 30/- as proper.
7.1. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh (Supra) by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent- original plaintiff is concerned, it appears that on facts the decision would not be applicable. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the original plaintiffs was not a party to the document and he prayed for declaration that the document, which was executed by the third party, is void and nonest and not binding to him in the present case. Admittedly the respondent-original plaintiff is not a party to the contract, which is terminated. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid decision would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Civil Revision Application succeeds. The impugned order passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot below Exh. 12 dated 10/11/1993 in Regular Civil Suit No. 176/1992 in Court Fees Reference No. 23/1992 is hereby quashed and set aside and the Court Fee Reference is hereby allowed and the respondent-original plaintiff is directed to pay/deposit the Court Fees of Rs. 14,270/-. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji