LAWS(P&H)-1991-2-219

LANDO Vs. ARJAN SINGH

Decided On February 20, 1991
LANDO Appellant
V/S
ARJAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated November 12, 1979, passed by Additional District Judge, Ambala, whereby appeal filed by Arjan Singh and others-plaintiffs was accepted and the case was remanded to the trial Court for re-decision according to law including the issue of court-fee.

(2.) The land was mortgaged. After its redemption a mutation was entered. However, possession remained with the mortgagers. The plaintiffs-successors-in-interest of the mortgagor filed the suit for possession of the disputed land against successor-in-interest of the mortgagees on February 2, 1968. In the meantime the land which was earlier agricultural land came into the abadi area and ceased to be assessed to land revenue. On the objection in this respect raised by the defendants an issue was framed regarding valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction as under :-

(3.) S. Daljit Singh Chahal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, has argued that the court-fee on the appeal before the lower appellate Court was not properly paid. The court-fee payable was difference of court-fee paid on the plaint and claimed under orders of the trial Court. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Uday Chand v. Mohan Lal and others, 1957 AIR(P&H) 315The Division Bench held that proper court-fee payable on an appeal against an order rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for non-payment of court-fee has to be on the difference between the court-fee as paid by the plaintiff in the lower Appellate Court and the court-fee held to be the proper court-fee by the lower Court. This contention could have been accepted if the lower appellate Court had decided the matter on merits of the case and had not remanded the case. On remand of the case the appellant could pray for refund of the court-fee. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and is repelled.