AMRIK SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not necessary to advert to the facts and the merits of the case in this regular second appeal. The plaintiff-appellant had brought a suit seeking a declaration that the sale by public auction of the suit property situated in the hussainpura suburb of the Amritsar town was invalid, without jurisdiction and therefore not binding on the plaintiff-appellant. The suit was contested and on the pleadings of the parties apart from others the following issue No. 1 which was treated as preliminary was framed:-" whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction?" the Trial Court came to the finding that the suit fell within Section 7 (iv) (c) of the court Fees Act and the plaintiff was, therefore, bound to pay advalorem court-fee on the market value of the property in dispute. Consequently the other issues were not adverted to upon merits and the plaintiff-appellants was directed to make up the deficiency on the basis of the market value of the property on the 8th april, 1968. However, the appellant failed to pay the court fee and correct the valuation of the suit in spite of two or three adjournments given by the Trial Court. Acting under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, the Trial Court then rejected the plaint with costs on the 22nd May, 1968.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order above said the plaintiff-appellant went up in appeal which came up before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, exercising enhanced appellate powers. Therein a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the memorandum of appeal had itself been insufficiently stamped and the appeal be rejected on that ground alone. The first Appellate Court opined that the view taken by the Trial Court that the case fell within section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court fees Act was apparently correct and therefore held that the memorandum of appeal was insufficiently stamped. It further saw no ground to allow the plaintiff-appellant to make good the deficiency in the court-fee before it and rejected the appeal on this preliminary ground.

(3.) THE appellant has now come up against the order above said of the first appellate Court.