ARJAN MOTORS MALOUT PARTNERSHIP FIRM Vs. GIRDHARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MESSRS . Arjan Motors, Malout, through Shri Dilbhajan Singh have filed this petition against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Class, Muktser, dated 22nd January, 1974.

(2.) THE only point involved in this petition is whether proper court-fee has been paid by the plaintiff or not. The trial Court has held that the suit, as framed, is for a mandatory injunction and that proper court-fee has been paid. The contention of Mr. S. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the suit, as framed, is a suit simpliciter for possession and that the plaintiff was to pay ad valorem court-fee.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. S. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the latest decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379, a revision by a defendant on a question of court-fee does lie. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to the observations of their Lordships, which appear at page 2383 of the report and read as under-