Skip to content


Jagan Nath Prasad Vs. Mulchand and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1909)ILR31All262
AppellantJagan Nath Prasad
RespondentMulchand and ors.
Excerpt:
.....no. vii of 1870 (court fees act), section 5 - reference--schedule i, articles 4 and 5--court fee--interlocutory order--review of. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which..........for trial by the court below. an application was presented by the appellant in that case for a review of the interlocutory order referring these issues, the application was presented on a court-fee stamp of rs. 2. the official charged with the duty of checking the court-fee reported that the application was insufficiently stamped on the ground that the proper court-fee on the application was the fee leviable on the memorandum of appeal. the taxing officer accepted this view, but considering the question be one of general importance, made a reference regarding it under section 5. it is no doubt true that the application is an application for a review of judgment and that judgment is defined as meaning the statement given by the judge of the grounds of a decree or order. but in my.....
Judgment:

Aikman, J.

1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer, under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act. In Execution Second Appeal No. 1143 of 1907 a Bench of this Court referred certain issues for trial by the court below. An application was presented by the appellant in that case for a review of the interlocutory order referring these issues, The application was presented on a court-fee stamp of Rs. 2. The official charged with the duty of checking the court-fee reported that the application was insufficiently stamped on the ground that the proper court-fee on the application was the fee leviable on the memorandum of appeal. The Taxing Officer accepted this view, but considering the question be one of general importance, made a reference regarding it under Section 5. It is no doubt true that the application is an application for a review of judgment and that judgment is defined as meaning the statement given by the judge of the grounds of a decree or order. But in my opinion neither Article 4 nor article.5 of schedule I of the Court Fees Act refers to an interlocutory order; I think it is clear from the language of these articles that they deal with judgments ending in a decree. I am of opinion therefore that the application was properly stamped. The learned vakil for the applicant has referred me to a case in the Bombay High Court in which a similar view was expressed by the learned Chief Justice on reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act. This is to be found at p. 383 of the Printed judgments of the Bombay High Court for 1892. I concur with the view there taken. This is my answer to the reference.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //