Skip to content


Durga Prasad Vs. Swami Avidya Nand Guru Swami Hamarata Nand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberF.A.F.O. No. 336 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1958All574
ActsCourt-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 7 and 19 - Schedule - Article 1; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 8, Rule 6
AppellantDurga Prasad
RespondentSwami Avidya Nand Guru Swami Hamarata Nand
Advocates:G. Kumar and ;N. Kumar, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
civil - court fees - sections 7(i), 19 and schedule i article i of court fees act, 1870 - whether court fees payable in case of set off - held, court fees payable. - - the defendant in the written statement alleged that the plaintiff failed to supply the stone ballast and, therefore, he suffered a loss of rs......section 6a of the court-fees act.2. the plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of the price of stone ballast supplied to the defendant. the defendant in the written statement alleged that the plaintiff failed to supply the stone ballast and, therefore, he suffered a loss of rs. 13,459/3/-. he, therefore, claimed a set off. the court demanded court-fee on this set-off. the defendant objected to it. after hearing the parties the civil judge has asked the defendant to pay ad valorem court fee on rs. 13,459/-. against that order this appeal has been filed.3. it had been contended that by claiming these damages the defendant was actually not claiming his set off but was pleading adjustment. i do not think that this is case of adjustment or payment; but the present case is a case of.....
Judgment:

V.D. Bhargava, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 6A of the Court-fees Act.

2. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of the price of stone ballast supplied to the defendant. The defendant in the written statement alleged that the plaintiff failed to supply the stone ballast and, therefore, he suffered a loss of Rs. 13,459/3/-. He, therefore, claimed a set off. The court demanded court-fee on this set-off. The defendant objected to it. After hearing the parties the Civil Judge has asked the defendant to pay ad valorem court fee on Rs. 13,459/-. Against that order this appeal has been filed.

3. It had been contended that by claiming these damages the defendant was actually not claiming his set off but was pleading adjustment. I do not think that this is case of adjustment or payment; but the present case is a case of set-off on the ground of damages suffered on account of non-supply of the stone ballast. If the claim by the plaintiff had been admitted and the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff had been adjusted in this account, the matter would have been different. But the cause of action of the claim for damages being entirely different it is a clear case of set off covered by the Bench decision of this Court in Ratan Lal v. Madari : AIR1950All237 .

4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Punjab Electric Power Co., Ltd. v. Suraj Kishan, AIR 1937 Lah 62 (B). I do not think the facts of that case are similar to the facts of the present one and in my opinion the decision of the court below is correct. I see no force in this appeal; it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.

5. The record of the case shall be sent backto the court below forthwith so that the case maybe decided as expeditiously as possible.


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