SIALKOT MISSION Vs. SIR BISHESHARDAS DAGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant for a review has entirely mistaken his remedy. The judgment in question fixed the price of redemption of property held by the applicant at a certain sum, and the present application is for the addition to that sum of the price of improvements made in the property by the applicant, who is a purchaser of the property without notice of the mortgage. He would seem to be entitled to that money under Section 51, T.P. Act, though that section was not mentioned in the course of these proceedings; but the way to get it is not by asking for a review of the appellate judgment in a case in which not a word was said about the matter in either Court. The proper course, on which we understand the applicant has started since filing this application, is to make a demand on the opposite party for one of the alternatives mentioned in Section 51, T.P. Act; if he refuses, the demand can be enforced by a suit.

(2.) FURTHER , a Court-fee of Rs. 10, paidon the application for a review, is insufficient. The relief sought is measured by the value of the improvements made in the property by the applicant, which is said to be of the sort mentioned in Article 17(vi) of the schedule of the Court-fees Act, that is to say a relief of which it is not possible to estimate the money value. That is manifestly incorrect, and indeed it is admitted by counsel for the applicant not only that it is possible to estimate the money value of the improvements but that it has been ascertained, not merely estimated, to be Rs. 395, for which sum a demand supported by vouchers has been sent to the opposite party.