SRI SAMUEL H JOSEPS Vs. JOHN C TAYLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by the Court below under order XVIII rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directing that the statement of plaintiff in the suit giving rise to this revision may be recorded as he was about to leave the jurisdiction of the Court. In pursuance of this direction the court had recorded the statement of the plaintiff. Before, however, his statement could not be completed and the plaintiff court not be cross examined, the defendant filed this revision and got the proceedings stayed.

(2.) THE plaintiff-opposite party filed application under Order XVIII rule 16 of the Code of Civil Proceedure stating that the plaintiff was leaving the country shortly. His statement may, therefore, be recorded forthwith. THE application was opposed by defendant-applicant on a variety of grounds which it is not necessary to elabourate in view of the fact that the learned counsel confined his submissions to only one objection. Sri H. S. Nigam, appearing for defendant applicant submitted that in this case the defendant had raised an objection with regard to the sufficiency of Court fees paid by plaintiff upon the plaint. A question of proper amount of court fees having been raised no proceeding could be permitted to take place in view of the peremptory language of section 6 (4) of the Court Fees Act.

(3.) IN view of what has been stated above, I find no merit in the objection raised by the defendant against the procedure adopted by the court below. Thus there is no merit in the revision which is dismissed. The interim orders are discharged. The court below is, however, directed to dispose of the issue of court fee as a first issue before taking up any other issue. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.