REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KRISHAN KUMAR GROVER Appellant

V/S

PARMESHRI DEVI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAMRUP DAS V. MOHUNT SUJARAM DAS [REFERRED TO]
GURMUKH SINGH V. RAM NATH [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR GROVER V. SMT. PARMESHARI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
RAMDHARI V. FATEHCHAND [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL BANK OF LAHORE LTD V. PUNJAB CERAMIC SUPPLY CO. [REFERRED TO]
SHEO PROSAD BUNGSHIDHUR V. RAMCHANDER HARIBUX [REFERRED TO]
RATNAVELU PILLAI V. VARADARAJA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
KULANDAI PANDICHI V. INDRAN RAMA-SWAMI PANDIA [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI DHUMNAJI V. MT. MUKTA BAI [REFERRED TO]
RACHAPPASUBRAO V. SHIDAPPA VENKATRAO [REFERRED TO]
DEVIDAS V. NILKANTHRAO [REFERRED TO]
SHREE BAJWA GANESH OIL AND RICE PULSE MILLS V. PARIKH OCCHAVLAL AMRATLAL [REFERRED TO]
MT. ZEH-UL-NISA V. DIN MOHAMMAD [REFERRED TO]
BURA MAL V. TULSI RAM [REFERRED TO]
SMT. ANGURI DEVI V. GURNAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
K. MANAITHUNAINATHA DESIKAR V. GOPALA CHELTIAR [REFERRED TO]
RATHNAVARMARAJA VS. VIMLA [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR S S KHANNA IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. BRIG F J DILLON IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
NORI SRIRAMA SASTRI VS. NORI LAKSHMIDEVAMMA [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEO GOPAL PENDSE VS. HARI WAMAN BHATE [REFERRED TO]
LAKHSHMI NARAIN VS. BHARAT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS LAL KHOSLA VS. MOHAN LAL SANON [REFERRED TO]
RAMKHELAWAN SAHU VS. BIR SURENDRA SAHI [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI NARAIN RAI VS. DIP NARAIN RAI [REFERRED TO]
CHINTALAPATI MURTHIRAJU VS. CHINTALAPATI SUBBARAJU [REFERRED TO]
JOY CHAND LAL BABU VS. KAMALAKSHA CHAUDHURY [REFERRED TO]
SAILENDRA NATH KUNDU VS. SURENDRA NATH SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH S/O. GOPALA VS. RAMA S/O. RAGHOTL [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNA UDAYAR VS. VASUDEVA AIYAR [REFERRED TO]
SHEEL KUMAR VS. ADITYA NARAIN AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for decision before the Full Bench is--Whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. is competent at the instance of a plaintiff against an order holding that additional court-fee is payable on the relief claimed and directing him to pay the additional court-fee an his plaint within the time specified by the Court

(2.) THIS question arose before a Single Judge in Civil Revn. No. 334 of 1962 Krishna Kumar Grover v. Smt. Parmeshari Devi. The plaintiff had filed a suit in the court of a Subordinate Judge at Amritsar for partition of the property and for rendition of accounts against the defendants. Issues were framed and certain issues were treated as preliminary and issue No. 1 was-- whether the plaint is properly stamped. The plaintiff had under Article 17 (b) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act paid court-fee of Rs. 19. 50 np for partition of properties and bad valued the plaint at Rs. 200/- for rendition of accounts. The value of the plaint for purposes of jurisdiction was fixed at 20,000/- The trial Court finding that Rs, 57,256/- was the value of the shares claimed by the plaintiff in the various properties involved, held that he should have paid ad valorem court-fee on the sum of Rs. 57,256 and it allowed him time up to the 31st May 1962, to make up the deficiency of the court-fee. This was the order impugned in the revision petition and pending its decision further proceedings, in the trial Court have been stayed.

(3.) ON account of the conflict of authorities on the above legal question, it was referred to a larger Bench and the Division Bench, before which the reference came up, has, vide its order dated the 27th April, 1964, considered it advisable that the matter be decided by the Full Bench.

Click here to view full judgment.

KRISHAN KUMAR GROVER Vs. PARMESHRI DEVI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address