MARTHOMA RUBBER CO Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in a suit for recovery of money are the petitioners. THE respondent is the plaintiff.

(2.) IT is seen from the judgment that the suit was decreed on confession; that is, the suit was decided solely on the admission of the defendants.

(3.) SO far as the case on band is concerned, it falls within the second category. However, the court below rejected the claim on the ground that since the issues had already been framed, the suit cannot be said to have been decided solely on the admission of the defendants without any investigation. As to why the court below held so, is not clear from the judgment. May be that the court below is of the view that the issues are settled only after conducting the enquiry envisaged under Clause. 5 of R. 1 of 0. 14 CPC and therefore the suit cannot be said to be decided without any investigation although the defendants at the time of the final hearing admitted the suit claim. The enquiry under this rule in one respect is an investigation. But how far that enquiry or investigation for the limited purpose of framing issues, debars the party who bad paid the court fee on the plaint, from claiming refund of one half of the court fee on the suit being decided on confession (but after the framing of the issues) is the ticklish question warranting answer.