LAWS(HPH)-1955-8-3

HIRA Vs. B D KASHYAP

Decided On August 25, 1955
HIRA Appellant
V/S
B.D. KASHYAP Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by a defendant arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 470/ on the basis of an agreement. Having regard to the proviso (ii) to para. 35, Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, the revision petition is incompetent.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this may then be treated as a revision petition under para. 35(1) (a), Himachal Pradesh (Courts); Order. As was pointed out by this Court in--'Mandir Shri Deota Jakh v. Sheshi Ram', AIR 1955 Him Pra 5(A):

(3.) In the present case, it so happens that. Theog and Simla are situated in two different States. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to cite any case, reported or otherwise, of fresh court fees haying been demanded, following the presentation of a plaint to a Court situated in a State, other than that in which, the Court, which returned the plaint was situated. The learned District Judge has referred to letter No. R86 62/53 from the Assistant Secretary (Revenue), Himachal Pradesh Government, to all Deputy Commissioners, of July 1953 (copy endorsed to this Court on 20-7-1953). A perusal of that letter would show that court-fee and non-judicial stamps, purchased from certain States other than Himachal Pradesh, were being used on documents presented to certain Courts in Himachal Pradesh. The plaint, in the present case, was presented? to the Subordinate Judge, Theog, on 6-9-1951, about two years prior to the issue of the above-letter. I should not be understood as laying, down any universal rule. But, so far as the present case is concerned, having regard to its peculiar circumstances and the practice which was in vogue in this State prior to July 1953 (as disclosed by the letter of the Assistant Secretary (Revenue) referred, to earlier), I feel that the learned District Judge was not unjustified in extending the equitable principles upheld in the four rulings, cited in the earlier portion of this judgment, in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the contention regarding court-fee fails.