dgm
gm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4923 OF 2008
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Petitioners
Vs.
1. Shahnawaz Kasim Shaikh & ors. Respondents.
Mr.Sandeep Dilip Shinde for the Petitioners.
Mr.V.Z.Kankaria i/by Mr.Rahul D. Motkari for the
Respondents 1 to 4, 10 and 11.
CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.
ig DATED : 15th December 2008.
P.C.
The 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.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:08:46 :::
(2)
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 under Section 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 ig 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/- under Section 6(iv) J of the Bombay
Court Fees Act, 1959 (for short, “Bombay Court Fees
Act”).
5. An application under Section 8 of Bombay Court
Fees Act, read with Order 7, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure
Code (CPC) was moved by the petitioners objecting to
the valuation of the suit. In pursuance to Section 9A
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:08:46 :::
(3)
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 Bonmbay 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.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:08:46 :::
(4)
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 ig 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
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:08:46 :::
(5)
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.
( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:08:46 :::