Mukhtiar Inder Kaur vs Avtar Singh and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 9th June, 1987 and the order dated 2nd February, 1987.

The Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a part of Khasra No. 485 situated in the revenue estate of village Badungar, Tehsil and District Patiala. One of the issues framed by the trial Court was ''whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction?'' The said issue was disposed of,--vide order dated 2nd February, 1987 in the following terms:

This issue was to be proved by the Defendants where over no specific evidence was needed. It is a legal issue and a matter of documentary evidence only. In this case the suit land is the agricultural land and the suit is for possession of a part of it. Jamabandi shows Khasra No. 485 to be the part of estate paying of revenue to the Government and the Plaintiff wants the possession of part of it i.e. of land measuring about 1 Biswa. This specific Biswa has not been separately assessed to the revenue although it forms part of other Khasra numbers paying land revenue to State and as such the provisions of Section 7(v)(d) are applicable and not Section 7(v)(a).

Consequently, the value of the suit was determined and the Plaintiff was directed to pay the Court fee according to the market value of the land and not 10 times of the land revenue as affixed by the Plaintiff. However, in the said order, it was directed that "Plaintiff is, therefore, directed to affix the Court fees on the plaint according to the provisions of Section (v)(a).

Later on, --vide order dated 9th June, 1987, it was clarified that in the earlier order there was a clerical mistake and the section should have been written as Section 7(v)(d) and not Section (v)(a). Consequently, the said mistake was corrected and the Plaintiff was directed to affix the Court fee on the market value of the suit land

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I find that the order dated 2nd February, 1987 directing the Plaintiff to pay the Court fee on the market value of the land was not correct. It has been found as a fact by the trial Court itself that the suit land is an agricultural land is assessed to the land revenue. Once it is so found, then the Plaintiff is entitled to pay Court fee u/s 7(v)(a) and not u/s 7(v)(d) as held by the learned trial Court, It has thus acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. Consequently this petition succeeds, and both the impugned orders are set aside. The trial Court will proceed with the suit on the ground that the plaint has been properly valued by the Plaintiff. It is further directed that the parties will lead their evidence at their own responsibility in order to expedite the hearing of the suit. However, Dasti summons may be given to them, if so desired, as contemplated under Order XVI Rule 7-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The parties have been directed to appear in the trial Court on 9th January, 1989.