Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40359 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24672 of 2017 Petitioner :- Gagan Sharan Srivastava And Ors. Respondent :- I-Additional District Judge Unnao And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar,Km. Madhurima Bhargava,Shriya Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- Ravi Nath Tilahari,Shiv Nath Tilhari,Yogesh Kesarwani and Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24724 of 2017 Petitioner :- Gagan Sharan Srivastava And 3 Ors. Respondent :- I-Additional District Judge Unnao And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar,Km. Madhurima Bhargava,Shriya Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- Yogesh Kesarwani,Ravi Nath Tilhari,Shiv Nath Tilhari Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Both the writ petitions are being decided by this common judgement. 3. The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the judgement dated 20.09.2017 passed by the revisional court in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner being the land lord had instituted proceedings against the respondent, who is the tenant seeking a decree of rent and ejectment. The JSC Court had framed as many as five issues with regard to applicability of the Act, the default committed by the defendant and whether the amount deposited under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 would constitute a valid deposit. The JSC Court returned a finding that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were not applicable. The notices were validly served and there was a default. The amounts deposited under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were held to be invalid deposits for grant of any benefits to the tenant and the suit came to be decreed. The said decree was challenged by the defendant to the suit by filing a revision. In the revision, one of the grounds taken was that no court fee was paid on the relief of decree of eviction as was sought by the plaintiff. The revisional court in a very strange judgement recorded that the trial court had decreed the suit and placing reliance on the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC held that it would be just and proper that a finding may be recorded by the trial court over non-payment of the court fees on the relief seeking decree of eviction. The revisional court without reversing the finding held that a fresh finding was required with regard to service of notice, whereas the finding recorded by the trial court was explicit after considering the evidence. By means of the judgement passed on 20.09.2017, the revisional court remanded the matter for consideration and recording of fresh finding with regard to default, with regard to service of notice and also to pass orders on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners had moved an application proposing to pay the deficit court fee assessed at Rs.633/- before the revisional court. However, the same was not considered and the matter was remanded. It is further argued that none of the findings of fact were reversed or were found to be perverse, empowering the revisional court to exercise the power of revision and thus, the order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. An undertaking is given that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay double court fee, i.e., of Rs.1,266/-, if this Court so directs. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that the court fee is a question of fact to be determined by the court at the first instance and thus, no fault can be found in the order impugned. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Case of Tajender Singh Ghambhir and another Vs. Gurpreet Singh and others (2014) 10 SCC 702, wherein the Supreme Court had held that the deficiency in court fee can be made good even at an appellate stage. 8. Considering the fact that the petitioners had moved an application proposing to pay the deficit court fees at the revisional stage, the revisional court ought to have accepted the said and should have permitted the petitioners to make good court fee. With regard to the other findings, findings of fact, have not even been set aside or held to be perverse by the revisional court. Thus, the exercise of power under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is without any justification whatsoever. 9. The revisional order cannot be sustained on account of the deficiencies noticed above and is quashed. The order of the JSC Court dated 06.10.2016 is affirmed. 10. However, the petitioners shall pay an amount of Rs.1266/- by tendering the amount before the JSC Court within a period of one month from today. The JSC Court shall execute the decree and judgement dated 06.10.2016 forthwith after the court fee is made good. 11. Both the writ petitions are allowed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench