' This order will dispose of the two Petitions R.A. No,127/1974 and R.A. No,129/1974, filed by the plaintiff/petitioner.
(i) Revision Application No,129/1974 arises out of order dated 17-3-1973, passed by the learned Civil Judge at Hyderabad, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay deficit court-fee on the claim of damages, which order was maintained by the learned District Judge at Hyderabad by order passed on 31-1-74 in Civil Revision No,11 of 1973.
(ii) The other Petition R.A. No,127/1974 has been filed against the order dated 31-1-1974 whereby the learned lower appellate Court dismissed Civil Appeal No,139/1974 and thereby maintained the order dated 24-5-1973, passed by the learned Civil Judge in the above-mentioned suit, rejecting the plaint for failure of the plaintiff to pay the requisite court-fee on the additional relief for damages incorporated in the plaint by allowing the amendment in the plaint.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed Suit No,67/1968 in the Court of Civil Judge at Hyderabad, wherein on the facts pleaded therein, the following reliefs were prayed for: "That the plaintiff prays for judgment and decree that the Honorable Court will be pleased to declare the show-cause notice dated 13-3-1965, the dismissal order dated 31-8-1965 and the order on plaintiff's appeal whereby the dismissal of the plaintiff is upheld as null and void and ineffective and the plaintiff be deemed in the defendant's service on duty from the date of his dismissal with all the rights and privileges to which he is entitled. The costs of the suit be borne by the defendant and any other relief beneficial to the plaintiff may also be awarded."
3. Subsequently the plaintiff made application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. on which the plaintiff was allowed on 12-4-1969 to amend the plaint and thus add the following additional prayer:- "(b) the defendant be ordered to pay damages for wrongful dismissal to the plaintiff to the extent of salary and other emoluments to which the plaintiff is entitled in the grade of Rs,350-25-500-EB- 30-710 from the date of his wrongful dismissal i.e, from 13-9-1965 up to the date of his retirement as provided in the rules of the defendant."
' The plaintiff filed the amended plaint, but paid no court-fee on the relief, which was allowed to be added as abovementioned.
4. An application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. was subset- quaintly moved by the defendants for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff/petitioner had failed to pay proper court-fees on the additional relief claimed by him. On the said application, the learned Civil Judge by order passed on 17-3-1973 directed the plaintiff:-- "To pay ad valorem court-fee on amount of damages which he claims within 30 days from today (i.e, 17-3-1973)."
' The plaintiff, however, failed to pay the court-fee as directed and moved an application under section 148 read with section 149 of C.P.C. for extension of time for payment of the court-fees, which application was allowed. This order was also not complied with, and consequently by the impugned order passed on 24th May, 1973, the learned trial Court rejected the plaint for failure of the plaintiff to deposit the deficit court-fee as directed earlier and extension subse quently granted on the application moved on 20-4-1973 by the plaintiff.
5. Against the order directing the plaintiff to pay the court-fee on the additional relief, the plaintiff filed Revision Application No,11 of 1973, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 31-1- 1974, which order is the subject-matter of Revision Application No,127/1974. It may however be mentioned that before the learned District Judge could dispose of the said revision application by order dated 24-5-1973, the learned Civil Judge rejected the plaint for the default on the part of the plaintiff to deposit the deficit court-fee. Against the order of rejection of the plaint, the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No,139/1973, which however was dismissed by order passed on 31-1-1974 by the learned lower appellate Court.
6. Against the above orders passed by the lower Courts the plaintiff has preferred these two Revision Applications in this Court. Both these cases were heard together with the consent of the learned Advocates of the parties as common questions of fact and law are involved. Both the petitions are disposed of by this order.
7. Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, the learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff raised the following grounds in support of these two petitions:--
(i) That the learned lower Courts failed to appreciate that no order directing the petitioner/plaintiff to correct the valuation of the plaint was passed and that without giving him opportunity to pay the amount of court-fees determined by the Court, the plaint could not have been rejected.
(ii) That in any case the plaint could not have been rejected as a whole for non-payment of the court-fee on the additional relief allowed to be added subsequently by way of amendment of the plaint.
8. It would be relevant first to refer to the additional relief which was allowed to be added by amendment allowed in the plaint. The additional relief has been reproduced in para. 2 above. It would be observed that the plaintiff has not mentioned any specific amount; for which he claimed a decree by way of damages to be passed against the defendants. It is obvious that the relief claimed in law was not properly valued. In the circumstances it was rightly argued by Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that clause (b) of rule 11 of Order VII of C.P.C. was attracted which provided that where the relief claimed is not properly valued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct that valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so, the plaint could be rejected. A perusal of the record shows that prior to the passing of the order of rejection of the plaint, the learned Civil Judge had neither determined the value of the suit/the additional relief claimed on which the deficit court-fee stamp was required to be paid nor determined the shortfall in the court-fees payable. Mr. Jhamat argued that in these circumstances plaint could no have been rejected. I find support to the above arguments from the case reran 'ted as Malik Jan Muhammad v. Shukaruddin and others 1980 CLC 186. In the said case, the provisions of Order VII, rule 11 as to the rejection of the plaint written upon paper insuffi ciently stamped and the failure of the plaintiff to pay the requisite stamps paper when required to do so by the Court, came up for consideration. The learned High Court observed that the said provision of the law pre- supposes that there is already a determination about the required stamp papers, insufficiency therein and the direction to supply the requisite that is to say the fall short. Having observed as above the learned Court held as follows:-- "It cannot be that the Court may take no steps to determine the fact and issue a general and omnibus direction to supply whatever be the requisite stamp papeRs, When a law provides a penalty for non-compliance, as it does in the provision under discussion by rejection of the plaint, it always lays down with exactitude what is required to be complied with. Therefore, it seems to us that when a Court does not specify what are the requisite stamp papers which a plaintiff has to supply but leaves the matter in general terms to make up whatever the deficiency in the court-fee may be, in the hands of the plaintiff, it cannot invoke its powers under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. because there is no failure to comply with any definitive direction."
With the observations made as above, I am in respectful agree ment and thus hold that in the case under consideration unless the Court had determined and specified the requisite stamp papers to be supplied by the plaintiff the Court could not have invoked its powers under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. and reject the plaint for the alleged reason that there is a non-compliance of the directions given for payment of alleged deficit court-fee (which is not determined or specified by the Court).
' Mr. Saleem, the learned counsel for the respondent tried to support the orders passed by the Courts below but he was unable to cite any law in support of the submissions made by him so as to distinguish the present ck.se from the principle laid down in the case of Malik Jan Muhammad Id.
Shukaruddin and others (ibid). For the above reasons these two revision applications are liable to succeed.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order, passed by the learned Courts below on 17-3-1973 directing the plaintiff to pay the court-fee within 30 days without determining the requisite amount of court-fee to be paid cannot be sustained. Since the order dated 17-3-1973 is set aside as not warranted by law, the subsequent orders passed on its basis, leading to the rejection of the plaint by order passed on 24-5-1973 and the orders passed in appeal on 31-1-1974 by the learned lower appellate Court, also fall, and consequently set aside.
While setting aside the impugned orders, the suit is remanded to the learned District Judge, Hyderabad who would transfer it to the Court of any of the Senior Civil Judges at Hyderabad with the direction that the said Court shall allow the plaintiff to appropriately value the relief for damages claimed by him and then determine and specify the requisite stamp papers to be supplied by the plaintiff within such reasonable time as may be fixed by the said Court. The said Court thereafter shall proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with the law.
' Before concluding I would like to observe that in view of the fact that Revision Application No, 127 of 1974 has been allowed and thereby order passed by the Civil Judge on 24-5-1973 and order passed in Civil Appeal No,139 of 1974 have been set aside, it is not deemed necessary to go into the maintainability of Revision No,129/74 against the order passed in Revision No,11/73 by the learned District Judge.
' In the circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs.