IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1112 of 2007 GANGA PRASAD THAKUR Versus SATYA NARAYAN SAH & ORS ----------- 3 18/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite parties on the question of maintainability of this Civil Revision application. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.4.2007, whereby and whereunder, the application filed by the defendant dated 3.2.2007 permitting him to add court fee by way of amendment in the last paragraph of the written statement has been rejected. The office of this Court had in its office notes pointed out that – “the impugned order is one by which the learned court has rejected the petition of the petitioner under order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for permitting him to plead counter-claim in his written statement and to pay ad-valoram Court fee on its vide paragraph no. 1 of the statement of fact. Para no. IV of ground also relates to court fee matter. Hence the present Civil Revision filed by defendant does not appear to be maintainable in aspect of court fee matter in the light of AIR 2 1961 S.C. 1299.” Counsel for the petitioner however submits that once his counter claim infact was already allowed and as such the petitioner was entitled to value his counter claim as per correct valuation of the suit property and therefore the court below was wholly unjustified in rejecting such prayer of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the matter is not so simple. The petitioner, by the proposed amendment by enhancing the suit value of his counter claim and in the name of depositing advolerum court fee seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the court where this suit is being heard. This is so because when the suit was originally filed by plaintiff- opposite parties for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement of sale executed by defendant no.1 in their favour, the defendant no.3 claiming to have been subsequently dispossessed from the suit property during pendency of the suit, had filed an amendment petition in written statement for introducing and entertaining a counter claim which was allowed by the court below and he was permitted to seek a relief by way of his counter claim that in case of 3 dismissal of the suit the petitioner-defendant will be entitled to recovery of possession and ejectment of the plaintiff from the suit land. Such counter claim having been already allowed, the court below has correctly refused the further proposed amendment in written statement for giving an enhanced valuation of his counter claim of the same suit property. The issue with regard to maintainability of the civil revision application against such valuation of suit has already been concluded by the Apex Court in its decision reported in AIR 1961 S.C. 1299, wherein it has been held that the payment of adequate court fee is a matter of issue primarily between the plaintiff and the State and the order relating to adequacy of the court fee by the plaintiff cannot be looked into by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was on this account that the office of the Court had also pointed out that this civil revision application is not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner in this context has placed reliance on the judgment of this court reported in 2006 (3) P.L.J.R. page 282. The said judgment, in fact, is not an 4 authority on the question of exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the matter of payment of court fee. The matter can be looked into from yet another angle namely the restriction under order VIII Rule 6A which prohibits entertaining any counter claim which would exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Thus even if such counter claim of the defendant petitioner was allowed, it will have to be dealt by that very court which had entertained and allowed raising of such counter claim. In that view of the matter, as well the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, this Court would uphold the correctness of the office notes and dismiss this civil revision application as not maintainable. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay