R. Soman Vs. S. Pushparajan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 100-a [as substituted by c.p.c. amendment act, 2002]: [v.k. bali, cj, kurian joseph & k. balakrishnan nair, jj] applicability held, section is not retrospective. all appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. but subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro court appeals against judgment of single judge is not maintainable. provisions of section 100-a, c.p.c., will prevail over the provisions contained in the kerala high court act, 1959. - 2/- as well. 4. the aforesaid view finds support from para 10 of the judgment in peter's case (1998 (2) ker lt 729) mentioned in para 2 above as well.orderm.r. hariharan nair, j.1. the challenge is with regard to ext. p1 order of the arbitrator overruling the objection raised that the election petition filed as suit no. 3/98 is not maintainable.2. the contention raised by the petitioner as 8th defendant therein was that the suitwas not maintainable for the reason that the court-fee of rs. 500/- each has not been paid by the plaintiffs therein. reliance was placed in that regard on the decision in peter v. aravindakshan (1998) 2 ker lt 729. after a reference to r. 67(7) of the co-operative societies rules, 1969 which provides that for non-monetary disputes, the court-fee payable will be rs. 500/-. it was observed that over and above the said fee, a person who challenges an election, has to affix a court-fee of rs. 2/- as well. the.....

Judgment:
ORDER

M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

1. The challenge is with regard to Ext. P1 order of the Arbitrator overruling the objection raised that the election petition filed as Suit No. 3/98 is not maintainable.

2. The contention raised by the petitioner as 8th defendant therein was that the suitwas not maintainable for the reason that the Court-fee of Rs. 500/- each has not been paid by the plaintiffs therein. Reliance was placed in that regard on the decision in Peter v. Aravindakshan (1998) 2 Ker LT 729. After a reference to R. 67(7) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 which provides that for non-monetary disputes, the Court-fee payable will be Rs. 500/-. It was observed that over and above the said fee, a person who challenges an election, has to affix a Court-fee of Rs. 2/- as well. The petitioner's case is built upon a reference to the words 'a person' contained in the said Judgment. According to him, ' a person' means each person and depending upon the number of persons in the array of plaintiffs, each of them has to pay Court-fee of Rs. 500/-.

3. On hearing both sides. I find no merit in the said contention. What Rule 67(7)(a)(ii) mandates is that the Court-fee payable for non-monetary disputes shall be Rs. 500/-. If there is only one common prayer for all the petitioners, they need not pay Rs. 500/-each. There is nothing in Rule 67 which connects the Court-fee payable to the number of petitioners.

4. The aforesaid view finds support from para 10 of the judgment in Peter's case (1998 (2) Ker LT 729) mentioned in para 2 above as well. It was noted that the petitioners' case therein was that besides setting aside the election , they should also be declared elected in the place of respondents 1 to 5 therein. It was in view of the said special relief applicable to each of the petitioners that the Court found therein that fee of Rs. 500/- each should be paid by each of them.

5. As far as the present case is concerned, the relevant prayer in the Arbitration case was only the following :

'This Hon'ble authority may be pleased to pass an award declaring that election of the defendants 3 to 9 as Committee members is illegal and against the mandatory procedures in Rule 35 and illegally constituted Committee may be set aside.'

The other reliefs were only consequential. It can be seen from the above that in the case in hand there was no further prayer for the petitioners that they or any one among them be declared elected in the place of defendants 3 to 9. The relief prayed for by all the petitioners is one and the same, namely, setting aside the election. In the absence ofany further prayer specially applicable to each of the plaintiffs they are not bound to pay Court-fee of Rs. 500/-.

6. The petitioner has no case that in addition to Rs. 500/-, the required Court-fee of Rs. 2/- is not paid. The arbitration suit, is therefore, properly filed and it will be disposed of in accordance with law.

O.P. is dismissed.