NILLA JAGANNADHAM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in Title Suit No. 17 of 1990 of the Court of Subordinate Judga, Pariakhemundi is the petitioner in this, revision. The suit has been filed for recovery of certain properties which belonged to her parents. She filed an application Under Section 18 -A of the Court -fees Act praying for exemption of court -fee as, according to her, she satisfies all the requirements of the said section. The learned trial Court rejected that application on the ground that her husband is an ex -military man and is getting Rs. 500/ - per month. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application for review of the said order, which was registered as M. J. C. No. 40 of 1990. The ground for review was that her application Under Section 13 -A of the Court -fees Act was rejected on irrelevant ground and the Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in rejecting the application. It was stated that there was sufficient cause for reconsideration of the matter by way of review. The State of Orissa and its officers, who were impleaded as defendants objected to the said petition. The ground stated in their objection was that the application does not lie within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Their further contention is that the rejection of the petition by the Court was on valid ground as her husband's income has also to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the annual income of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court after hearing both parties on this application for review has rejected the same by the impugned order. Hence this revision.

(2.) AT the stage of admission notice was issued to the opposite parties indicating that the revision is likely to be disposed of at that stage. The opp. parties have entered appearance pursuant to the notice and are ready for contesting the matter. Hence, with the consent of both parties the revision is taken up for final disposal and for that purpose learned counsel for both parties were heard at length.

(3.) ORDER '47, Rule 1 of the. CPC authorises the Court which passed the order to review the same at the instance of a party considering himself aggrieved by it, that if some new and important matter or evidence which is relevant for the purpose was discovered which could not be produced after exercise of due diligence or if there appears to be . some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or. there exists any other sufficient reason, the order passed Under Section 18 -A of the Court -fees Act is hot an appealable order. Thus, an application for review will be maintainable provided the petitioner satisfies that there exists any of the aforesaid three grounds for allowing it.