IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4536 of 2010 Between: Chakarhari Ananda Vardhana Raju .. Revision Petitioner AND Juluru Madhu & 11 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4536 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri I.V. Radhakrishna Murthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though notice before admission of the Civil Revision Petition was served on the first respondent/plaintiff, none entered appearance for the first respondent/plaintiff and the other respondents 2 to 12 being co-defendants were stated by the revision petitioner to be not necessary parties to this revision. 2. I.A.No.331 of 2010 in O.S.No.90 of 2006 was filed by defendants 9 to 12 (including the present revision petitioner who is the 10th defendant) requesting for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (b) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’), on the main ground that the suit was undervalued and that certain reliefs were not valued. 3. The petitioners contended that the plaintiff did not state the basis for arriving at the market value of the property and when the relief of declaration to declare all the suit properties as undivided joint Hindu family ancestral properties of the parties is sought for, court fee ought to be paid on the value of all the properties and not merely 1/10th share of the plaintiff. The relief sought for against registered Sale Deeds also could not have been restricted to 1/10th share of the plaintiff, but should have been valued on the entire value of the registered Sale Deeds. The relief of separate possession of 1/10th share was not separately valued by the plaintiff and the alternative relief of recovery of possession was also not similarly valued at all. Hence, the defendants 9 to 12 sought for rejection of the plaint. 4. The plaintiff opposed the petition contending that the defendants can dispute the valuation and court fee at the earliest stage not later than the first hearing of the suit and before framing of the issues and not later. The plaintiff filed the Market Value Certificate obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Deverakonda, along with the suit. The plaintiff also stated that as per the Check Slip No.3/09 issued on verification by the Court Fee Examiner, the deficit court fee was paid to a tune of Rs.1,236.50 Paise. The Court allowed I.A.No.341 of 2009 for amendment of the prayer and the consequential relief of allotment of share is not required to be subject to payment of any court fee. The order in I.A.No.341 of 2009 had become final and no further court fee need be paid as claimed by the defendants 9 to 12 who filed the petition only to prolong the litigation. Hence, the plaintiff desired the petition to be dismissed. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the trial Court passed the impugned order stating that the Market Value Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Deverakonda, was filed along with the suit on which basis, the valuation of the properties was made in the suit and the contention to the contrary cannot be accepted. The trial Court also observed that the Court Fee Examiner had already taken objections for the valuation of the suit and those objections were duly complied with by the plaintiff who paid the deficit court fee of Rs.1,236.50 Paise. Opining that an issue regarding the court fee can be framed during trial, if necessary, the trial Court considered the petition to be not maintainable at that stage in law or fact. Hence, the petition was dismissed while directing conclusion of the trial at an early date. 6. The defendant No.10 is before this Court with this revision contending that the trial Court did not assign any reasons for concluding that the court fee paid by the plaintiff was acceptable and the question of maintainability of the plaint ought not have been postponed to the framing of an issue and a decision during the trial. 7. The point for consideration is about the manner in which such objections about the valuation of the suit and proper court fee have to be considered and decided with particular reference to Order VII Rule 11 (b) read with Section 151 C.P.C. 8. Section 11 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’), enables any defendant to plead that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient and the provision mandates that all questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before the hearing of the suit as contemplated by Order XVIII C.P.C. The Court is obligated by the provision to decide the question and if it finds that any deficit fee shall be paid, such fee shall be paid within the time allowed by the Court, in default of which the plaint shall have to be rejected. The provision for inspection by the Court Fee Examiners to examine the correctness of the valuation of subject matter and sufficiency of fee under Section 16 of the Act is independent of and distinct from the mandatory provision of Section 11 (2) of the said Act. Apart from that statutory mandate, there is the provision under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time to be fixed by the Court fails to do so, or where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint was insufficiently stamped and was not supplied with the requisite stamp paper within the time to be fixed by the Court, the plaint shall have to be rejected under clauses b and c of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., provided of course, the Court has the power to extend the time so fixed for compliance by the plaintiff. 9. Sri I.V. Radhakrishna Murthy relied on SOPAN SUKHDEO SABLE AND OTHERS VS. ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS[1], wherein the Apex Court with reference to the precedents on the subject concluded that the defendant was made available an independent remedy under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. to challenge the maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to contest the same on merits and law ostensibly does not contemplate any stage when the objections can be raised. The Apex Court held that the trial Court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit and Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. casts a duty on the Court to perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint, when the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the four clauses of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., even without the intervention of the defendant. Therefore, the duty is cast on the Court in this regard and it has to be invariably performed. 10. In the impugned order, the trial Court did not consider the question as to whether the value of the properties in full but not confined to the 1/10th share of the plaintiff alone ought to have formed the basis for the payment of the court fee. Similarly, it also did not go into the question whether the value of the registered Sale Deeds as a whole should be the basis for the payment of court fee and not the 1/10th share of the plaintiff. It also did not adjudicate the objection as to whether the alternative relief of recovery of possession had to be independently valued. While no opinion need be expressed herein on the opinion of the trial Court that the certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Deverakonda, on the market value of the properties formed a dependable basis for arriving at the market value of the suit properties, the failure of the trial Court to go into the other questions raised by the defendants 9 to 12 solely on the basis of there being an examination of the plaint by the Court Fee Examiner and an answer to the objections of the Court Fee Examiner by the plaintiff is not due discharge of the legal obligations cast on the Court in this regard. The duty cast on it to decide such questions under Section 11 (2) of the Act as well as under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. ought to have been performed by the Court below and consequently, the matter ought to be remitted back to the trial Court for that purpose without expression of any opinion, on those questions involved, in this order. 11. Therefore, the order in I.A.No.331 of 2010 in O.S.No.90 of 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Deverakonda, dated 30.08.2010, is set aside and the said I.A.No.331 of 2010 in O.S.No.90 of 2006 is remitted back to the trial Court for a decision on merits in accordance with law after giving every reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order or this order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th January, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4536 of 2010 Date: 28th January, 2011 KL [1] (2004) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 137