Smt. T. Narsing Rani vs Kishen Rao and others

Motilal B. Naik, J.

Petitioner seeks a direction to the 6th respondent -- the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to register the plaint O.S.S.R, No. 5477 of 1995 without insisting production of market value certificate from the registering authority for the purpose of payment of proper court-fee at the time of presenting the plaint.

The petitioner raises an important question before this Court that as per Rule 3 of A. P. Court-fee and Suits Valuation Rules, 1987 (for short "the Court-fee Rules"), insistence of market value certificate to be obtained from the local registering authority for the purpose of payment of proper court-fee at the time of presenting the suit in the Court, is causing lot of hardship to the parties who approach the Courts for obtaining necessary relief in time in the suits being filed by them.

It is the case of the petitioner that she presented a suit before the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which is numbered as O.S. S.R. No. 5477/95. The 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad -- the sixth respondent herein, is insisting the petitioner to obtain a market value certificate from the local registering authority as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Court-fee Rules for the purpose of correct court-fee to be paid by the petitioner along with the suit. It is stated that the petitioner has approached the competent authority i.e., the local registering authority requesting it to issue necessary market value certificate. However, it is stated, the registering authority is delaying in issuing the said certificate, with the result, the suit filed by the petitioner for urgent relief is being frustrated and therefore, he has approached this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the sixth respondent to number the suit on the basis of the court-fee paid by the petitioner.

It is true that petitioner -- like persons who approach Courts seeking quick relief in urgent matter, the requirement under Rule 3 of the Court-fee Rules that the party has to obtain necessary market value certificate and present it along with the plaint for the purpose of payment of proper court-fees is causing considerable hardship to the parties. However, as long as the rule contemplated in this behalf, i.e., Rule 3 of the Court-fee Rules, a requirement precedent for the purpose of presenting the plaint before the lower Courts is in vogue, the Court on whose file the suit is presented, cannot overlook the provisions of Rule 3 of the Court-fee Rules and accept the valuation of the plaint/suit as shown by the party in the plaint, so also the court-fee as assessed by the said party. In my view, the learned Presiding Officers of the Courts have no option but to insist on the parties to the litigation for fulfilling the requirement contemplated as per Rule 3 of the Court-fee Rules. As long as the said rule is not challenged, this Court exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a direction to the lower courts to accept the plaint as presented by the parties without insisting the filing of market value certificate along with the plaint. This Court could invariably issue such a direction exercising powers under Article 227 vested in it when it is found that the Court below though vested with the jurisdiction refused to exercise its jurisdiction or there is an irregularity or breach of a rule of natural justice or an error apparent on the face of the record.

However, on a reading of the averments in the affidavit and on hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am not persuaded to hold that the sixth respondent has committed any error warranting issuance of a direction as sought for.

In this view of the matter, I do not see any merits in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

Revision dismissed.