AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.03.2010, passed below Exhibit-1, in Regular Civil Suit No. 722 of 2002 by the learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, whereby the learned Judge has directed the Petitioner to pay the Court fee on tender amount within 15 days from the date of the order.
The short facts of this case are that the Petitioner is a private company and carries on business as Government approved "AA" class contractor. The tenders were invited for the work of double land paver by the Respondent No. 2 on behalf of Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner filled in the form and submitted the same. The tenders were opened on 03.10.2001 and original validity period of offer was upto 13.11.2001. By letter dated 02.11.2011, request was made by Respondent No. 2 to extend the validity of offer upto 31.12.2001. Accordingly the Petitioner by letter dated 12.11.2001 extended the validity of offer upto 31.12.2001. The Respondent No. 2 accepted the offer of the Petitioner on 29.12.2001 and directed to furnish the security deposit of Rs. 2,66,750/- and performance bond of Rs. 5,33,500/-.
2.1. Thereafter by letter dated 14.02.2002 Respondent No. 2 directed to furnish security deposit failing which Earnest Money deposit will be forfeited and registration of Petitioner will be kept in abeyance for three years. By order dated 18.3.2002, the Respondent No. 2 informed the Petitioner that proceedings will be initiated for keeping the registration in abeyance for three years. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed R.C.S. No. 722 of 2002 before the learned Civil Judge(S.D.), Rajkot for declaration and permanent injunction and restraining the Respondents from implementing the order dated 18.3.2002. Vide order dated 12.3.2010, passed below Exhibit-1, the learned Judge has directed the Petitioner to pay the Court fee on tender amount within 15 days from the date of the order. Hence, this petition.
Heard Mr. C.K. Sukhwani, learned Advocate for the Petitioner. He submitted that the prayer of the Petitioner before the Trial Court is to declare that the action taken by the Defendant No. 2 by letter No. Tender/1779, dated 18.3.2002 is not tenable and the Petitioner has challenged the forfeiture of the security Rs. 1,06,700/-. Therefore the Court fee is required to be paid only on that amount.
As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is apparent that the suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction from implementing the order passed by Respondent No. 2 dated 18.3.2002. The filing of the suit was because of the threat to forfeit the earnest money deposit which is to be extent of Rs. 1,06,700/-. Therefore, the cause of action arose due to the alleged threat of forfeiture of the earnest money and hence the Court fee is required to be paid only on the said amount.
Even if the other prayer regarding keeping the registration in abeyance is concerned, the said relief is not capable of being valued in terms of money.
In the premises aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. It is held that the Petitioner is liable to pay Court fee only on the security amount of Rs. 1,06,700/-. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.