Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court said that when an appellant has failed to raise before the trial court an additional issue regarding the payment of deficit court fee by the opposite party, the substantial question of law with regard to rejection of the suit on grounds of insufficient court fee would not arise.
Justice Anis while dismissing a second appeal by one Mirza Aijaz Ali pointed out that the appellant had failed to raise the issue of insufficient fee before the trial court as well as in the first appellate court.
Counsel for Mr Ali contended that the suit was not maintainable due to payment of insufficient court fee by claiming joint possession by appellant and plaintiffs. He urged the court to formulate the substantial question of law as “whether the courts below are not bound to reject the suit on the ground of insufficient court fee even after the plea was specifically taken?”
He argued that in the written statement as well as in the appeal grounds before the first appellate court, they had taken a plea regarding the court fee. Both the courts failed to decide the said issue, and therefore, it was a substantial question of law in the second appeal.
Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that plaintiffs rightly paid the fixed court fee of Rs 200 under Section 34 of the AP Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 and the appellant cannot raise the plea that the plaintiffs had paid insufficient court fee.
The judge dismissed the appeal stating that the appellant had failed to prove that there was any substantial question of law.
