STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BAI MOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are several applications which raise a common question under Section 31 of the Court-fees Act, 1870. In order to understand the question, it is sufficient to state the facts in C. R. A. No. 1116 of 1956.

(2.) IN regular suit No. 202 of 1954 the parties to the suit arrived at a compromise and a consent decree was taken. This was after the issues were settled, but before the evidence was recorded. The plaintiffs, relying on Section 31, claimed a refund of half the amount of Court-fees and the learned Judge issued notice to the Government Pleader. The Government Pleader objected, contending that as in this case the consent decree was taken after the issues were settled, the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim half the amount of Court-fees. The learned Judge allowed the plaintiffs the refund of the Court-fees as claimed, and the Slate of Bombay has come up in revision.

(3.) NOW, Section 31, by Sub-section (1), provides: