IN TF£ HE$tj CQURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR' mHATTISGARH M Wm Pembn No.26 4w? of 2005 PETITIORER : Airendra Kumar Shukfu, PLAINTIFF Companies (Acquish‘ion & Transfer of underfaking Acf, 19m) having ifs Head Office af IO—Vipiavi Trailokya Maharqj Sarni, Babon Road, Caicuf’rab w’ UCO Bank, Ruipur Branch/of fhe DefendanHresponden? Nal, GE. Rfoada Raipur ((16). % /’ . %\J ’ “93¢ \> M. ‘ Ramavafar Shukfu‘ Aged ubau-r 52 year-s, f Rfo Nehru Nagar Ward, Raipur, rehsu & Dismm- Q§ og‘\%‘§b " ,.’r ....... Raipur (6.6.). gb‘ong‘ ?.Q(¢"’ § % . Qé‘sPONDENTs ~ Versus - DEFENDANTs /m uco Bank, A Body mmw ..W.ip.&.§.\..&£.&t.$:\.?§w2oo W W21(W) . mmm amméam mmerwm éiwma mmmmw 21 -9-2005 Shri B.D. Guru, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, counsel for respondents. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia the petitioner has questioned the legality. propriety and correctness of the order dated 14-10-1996; passed by the 6‘“ Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. ' 96 995 (Annexure-Plt) whereby learned Additional District Judge decid d the isSue No.3 against the petitioner herein holding that the Cou fee paid by the I petitioner herein is insufficient and he is required pay ad valotem Court fee on the amount of R53 lakhs. . Brief facts leading to filin of this writ petition are that on 2-4—91 the petitioner herein deposited a c eque bearing No.725323 dated 28-1-91 for Rs.3 lakhs issued by R.S. S ukla (brother of the petitioner herein) with respondent No.2 for credit in h savings account No.8296/34 and same was credited in the account on the same day. Thereafter, the petitioner herein issued a cheque for Rs.1 lakh on 25-4-91 on his aforesaid account in favour of Anuradha Shukla fe). This cheque was dishonoured by the respondent Bank. On 28-4- . on enquiry by the petitioner, he was informed that it so happened d e to drawer’s;"8top Payment” instruction dated 2-4—91. ' V Further case of the petiti ner before the Court below was that once a cheque credited in the acco nt of the petitioner respondent Bank was not entitled to re-transfer that mount in the account of Shri RS. Shukla after receiving instructionsfro said Shukla regarding "Stop Payment" > and the said action of respon ents was iliegal. Accordingly, he issued notice to the respondent Ba k. When nothing brought result, the SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 / - 1 ( i 9 m mqi$ m 200 mam (W) . ‘ " wWma petitioner herein filed a suit before the District Judge, Raipui with a prayer that it be declared that the d Ling of Rs.3 Iakhs ih the plaintiff‘s Saving ' Bank Account by the defenda t No.2 was unauthorized, mega! and non est, the defendants are bound treat the credit entry of R53 lakhs made on'2-4-91 in the plaintiff’s Sav ng Bank Account as valid, operative and yet subsisting and to give effe to the same accordingiy; Written statement Was h ed on behalf of the respondents herein in which an objection was raised hat the petitioner has not properly valued the suit and paid the Court fee correctly. On objection of the respondents herein, issue No.3 was framed by the trial Court and same wasdecided against the petitioner. it was h ld that the petitioner has paid insufficient Court fee. Being aggrieved b the said order of the Additional District Judge the petitioner has prefer l have heard learned co nsel for the parties. Shri B.D. Guru, learn d counsel appearing for Kthe petitioner, ‘ argued that the decision of the rial Court is not in accordance with Iaw, as the trial Court was required to ake into consideration the pleadings of the plaint, and the petitioner valu d the suit properly and paid proper Court fee. ln para-8 of the plaint, it has been mentioned that the respondents were not entitled for debiting 5.3 Iakhs. Such debiting of Rs.3 Iakhs in the plaintiff’s account is una. orized, illegal and non est, and hence ineffective and inoperative, an consequently this amount of Rs.3 Iakhs is yet to be included in the cred balance of the plaintiffs account and the defendants are bound to give ffect to the plaintiffs account accordingly. As per para-1.1 -of the piaint t e suit was valued for the purpose of both I Court fee and jurisdiction a Rs.3 Iakhs and the suit was only" for declaration, fixed Court fee of s.30l- was paid. Therefore, in view of the SP/FS/2005 v 20,000 e 't @ W mqi$ ....... ,. .....................l ....... 111200 311%?!W (W) marmm . aanméstamia; Max'mmw ~Q ,_, WW#WW above, the order of th‘e trial Court is illegal ’and perverse. He placed reliance on a decision of the Hc n'ble Apex Court in ‘lhe matter of S. Rm. ,Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Versus S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar reported in AIR 1958 S UPREME COURT 245. ‘ 0n the otherhand, 8hr Sachin Singh Rajput, learned counsel appearing for respondents ar d that mere drafting of the plaint and words used-in the plaint‘are n sufficient to decide the Court fee. The Court has to look into the relief ought for and the substance of the plaint. While supporting the order of t e trial Court, he also placed reliance 'on the above decision of the Hon ble Apex Court, on the judgment of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the matt r of SHAMSHER SINGH V. RAJINDER PRASHAD AND OTHERS re orted in AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 2384, and also on the judgme t of Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of S bhash Chand Jain V. Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and others r ported in 2000 (3) M.P.L.J. 522. Having heard learned c unsel for the parties, l have perused the impugned order, copy of the aint and the relevant decisions cited by learned counsel for the parties. In the matter of‘S. Rm. Hon‘ble Apex Court held that: $Wmev .S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar (Supra) the » “The question of curt-fees must be considered in [the light of the llegations made in the piaint and its decision annot be influenced either by the pleas in the tten statement or by the tinal decision of the su t on the merits.“ Facts of that‘case we e that the plaintiff tiled civil suit on the Original Side of the Madras Hi9 Court-claiming partition of thejoint family properties and an account in r spect of the joint family assetsmanaged SP/FS/2005 v 20,000 g‘ e i mmqi$ .......‘ ........ . .................... E200 @ 3W1W (W) mmmam ”(h ’mm-qmvvmmn $at%q3né31 by the respondent The plaintiff cl rmed share in the joint family hroperiies and the assets of the jomt fa iy properties He valued the claim for account at Rs 1 000/. and a Cou fee ef Rs 112 70 was paid on the said amount on an ad valorem basis ln respect of the partition he paid fxed Court fee of Rs.100/-. For th purpose of junsdictron. however the plaintiff gave Rs.15;00,‘000/- as ti e value of his share. The Registry raised V objections. The Registry raised objection after examining the plaint that the plaint should have been bo e court fee under Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act in respect of th claim of partition, the appellant did not accept thrs vrew, and the matter was referred to the Master of the Court who was the Taxing Officer and the Master felt that the issue rarsed by he Regrstry was of some rmpo ance so, m turn he referred the dlspute to the Judge and ultimately It held that Section 7 (v) of the Act was not applicable to the appellant claim for partition. According to the learned Judges neither was Arti le 17-B of Schedule-ll applicable. They held that the provisions of Secti n 7 (iv) (b) of the Act applied and that is ' why the appellant was dilfecte to mention his value for the relief of‘ ' partition under the said'Section Because, in the piaint the piaintiff had not specifically mentioned the v lue for the relief of partition claimed by him. He had merely stated that r the relief of partition claimed by him he was paying a court fee of Rs.10 I- in accordance with Schedule-ll, Article ‘ 17-B. All that he had done inf e plaint was to value his total claim for jurisdictron at Rs 15 lakhs Thereafter the appellant offered to fle an application for formal amendment of his plaint by substituting Rs 5O OOOI- In place of Rs.15,00,000/- for the jurisdic l value of his relief The Hon‘ble Apex Court held that ‘the plaintiff s uld be allowed to state the amount of SP/FS/aoos . 20,000 , t ‘ s tr a m mqi$ m 200 mammiaaa) . m mqi$ . E 200 metm (germ) anéermféaim ammmmiw mmmanéw _6.. mgm1§@w W :1 of arbitrary and un easonabie under-varu’atron wh‘IEF Court is bound to correct Substantial reltef asked for in the context o the facts of the case forms basis for settling correct ourt fee payable in the cases Applying the above princl le, If we look into the facts of the case 'tiled' by the petitioner, the ca$e of the petitioner before the Court below was that amount of Rs.3 Iak s, which was credited to his Savings Acconnt and thereafter on the ructions of R.S. Shukla who issued the cheque in favour of the petition r, the said amount has been debited to , the account of the petitioner, the efore, same action has been challenged by the petitioner in the plaint ore the Court below. ln para-9 of the plarnt it has been mentioned tha it is necessary to declare that the above said debitmg of Rs 3 lakhs bein unauthorized and illegal the defendants are bound to treat the credit e ry of Rs 3 iakhs made on 2-4-91 In the plarntiff‘s above sard account, a vatid, operative and yet subsisting and to give effect to the same accor ingly in future transactions. in para-11 of the plaint it has been mentione that the suit is valued for the purpose of both- Court fee and jurisdiction t Rs.3 lakhs and as the suit is only for declaration. fixed Court fee of s.30l- is paid herewith. ln para—13 (a) of the relief clause it has been me tioned that it be declared that the above said debiting of Rs.3 lakhs in the plaintiff'szabove said Saving Bank Account with the defendant No.‘ being non est, unauthorized and illegal,' the defendants are bound to tr tthe credit entry of Rs.3 lakhs made on 2-4-91 in the plaintiff's abov said Saving Bank Account as valid, operative and yet subsisting an to give effect to the same accordingly. Therefore, reading of th above paras makes it clear that in the sum and substance of the suit iled by the petitioner, he claims that the amount of Rs.3 lakhs which wa credited in his account has been wrongly SP/FS/2005 - 20.000 i t f Wmn-im .............................. . ..... ai2oo marw (Karim) memm amméam , mmafmw mmma anéa a”? asanaqanéa debited and same should be credited in his account. in fébt, his ctaim is abqut Rs.3 lakhs which he rece' ed from a cheque issued by R.S. shukia ‘I and ultimately which was‘on th instructions of R.S. Shukla debited to the er the settled law, the allegations in the plaint including the substantive relief claim must be the basis for settling the Court fee payable by the aintiff. But where he attempts to under- valuetthe plaint and reliefs, Co has real money value, which can be objectively ascertained. ln this of Section 7 of the Act which relates to certain suits, envisages that “to obtain a re consequential relief is prayed.“ The ntifr cannot be granted without the r'elief account'of the petitioner, as such, the lorem Court fee on the whole amount'of Barve : account of the petitioner. As has to intervene. In doing so, concept of ‘ real money value forms integra part of Court enquiry where relief sought connection, sub7section (iv) ( computation of fees payable ' declaratory decree or order, , declaration asked for by the p ‘ for crediting the amount in t petitioner is required to pay ad Rs.3 lakhs against which he h sought declaration. h ln the result, I-am of t opinion that the impugned order passed by 6'” Additional District Jud e, Raipur does not suffer from materiat irregularity or illegality and sa e requires no interference by this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and the ‘same is dismissed. ‘ Sdl- L.C.Bhadoo Judge $P/FS/2005 - 20,000 , ' Kygyff s ?\ wa m. at. aw. ... e i a c i w h l a