Mohta Anoop V., J.@mdashThe petitioners have challenged the impugned Order dated 30th May, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, whereby it is held that the valuation made by the respondents/plaintiffs and the Court fee paid thereon is proper and, therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected.
2. The petitioners are Agriculture Produce Market Committee (for short, "APMC, Nasik") who, in pursuance to Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act, (for short, "APMC Act"), entitled to levy and impose market fees and supervision charges in respect of the goods imported by the plaintiffs/respondents in Nasik city along with others.
3. The respondents are traders engaged in the business of selling and buying various types of fruits from different districts and selling it on wholesale and retail basis within Nasik district which is notified market area u/s 4 of the APMC Act. They have filed the present suit for declaration and injunction whereby they are claiming an order of restrainment against the petitioners from levying and imposing market fees and supervision charges in respect of the goods imported by them in Nasik city. There are also averments made in the plaint for refund of the amount which they have already paid to the petitioners. The market fees and supervision charges are fixed and well within the knowledge of the respondents as they are paying since long.
4. They have valued Suit at Rs. 4000/- and paid Court fee of Rs. 80/- u/s 6(iv) J of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (for short, "Bombay Court Fees Act").
5. An application u/s 8 of Bombay Court Fees Act, read with Order 7, Rule 1 of CPC (CPC) was moved by the petitioners objecting to the valuation of the suit. In pursuance to Section 9-A of CPC, an application was also moved for framing preliminary issue.
6. However, the Court rejected the same on both counts holding that the prayers in the suit are declaratory in nature and does not pertain to any specific recovery of any amount and neither the suit is for recovery of abovesaid amount and, therefore, it is not susceptible to the monetary valuation and, therefore, not covered under Sections 6(iv) and 9 of the Bombay Court Fees Act.
7. The Court need to consider once the objection is raised about the improper valuation. In the present case, the learned Judge failed to see that the suit is against the action of petitioners who are claiming and recovering the market fees and supervision charges. They are doing pursuance to the AMPC Act. The respondents/plaintiffs are paying accordingly. The amount is fixed and well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Once declaration as sought & if granted the petitioners will definitely loose the said money (market fees and supervision charges) and the respondents/plaintiffs will gain by not paying the same.
8. The respondents have in fact specifically averred in paragraph 5 of the plaint and demanded the refund of the amount so collected by the petitioners till this date. There cannot be any dispute that there is and there will be voluminous transaction of purchase and sale of imported agricultural produce made by the respondents and other such persons. We are concerned with the plaint and prayers made in the present suit. Therefore, I am of the view that such Suit as framed is susceptible to monetary evaluation and subject to Schedule I of Article 7 of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The trial Court has gone on foundation that it is a suit for declaration only. While considering the valuation of the suit, the total frame work of the suit including its contents is important. Once it is clear that whole attempt is to seek declaration and injunction against the petitioners which will result into an order of restrainment against AMPC to collect the fixed market fee and supervision charges. This, in my view, is susceptible to the valuation as contemplated under the Bombay Court Fees Act. The plaintiffs would definitely gain monetarily. The petitioners would loose accordingly.
9. Therefore, taking all this into account, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The learned Judge to reconsider the detail aspect of relevant provisions of Bombay Court Fee Act and pass fresh order accordingly. The petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
