Skip to content


Shib Dayal Vs. Meharban and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1921All395; (1921)ILR43All56; 58Ind.Cas.230
AppellantShib Dayal
RespondentMeharban and ors.
Excerpt:
court fee - two appeals from one decree--subsequently two second appeals filed by the same party, the subject matter being the same--consclidation of appeals. - - with this decree the plaintiff was not satisfied. i allow the appellant one month within which to make good the deficiency in court fees......of degree to the plaintiff. with this decree the plaintiff was not satisfied. he appealed to the district judge, maintaining that he was entitled to a decree for sale of the property mortgaged. the defendant also was dissatisfied with the decree and he also appealed to the district judge pleading that the plaintiff was not even entitled to a simple money- decree. the district judge dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and allowed the defendants' appeal, with the result that the plaintiff's suit stood dismissed completely. from both these appeals the plaintiff has filed two separate appeals in this court. this apparently is necessary to prevent the operation of the rule of ret judicata. according to the report of the stamp officer the plaintiff is bound to pay full court-fees on each.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer. The facts are simple. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in both the appeals which have been filed, brought a suit to enforce a mortgagre against the opposite party. The Court of first instance held that the remedy against the property was barred by time but that the plaintiff was entitled to a money decree against the present defendant'. It accordingly granted that class of degree to the plaintiff. With this decree the plaintiff was not satisfied. He appealed to the District Judge, maintaining that he was entitled to a decree for sale of the property mortgaged. The defendant also was dissatisfied with the decree and he also appealed to the District Judge pleading that the plaintiff was not even entitled to a simple money- decree. The District Judge dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and allowed the defendants' appeal, with the result that the plaintiff's suit stood dismissed completely. From both these appeals the plaintiff has filed two separate appeals in this Court. This apparently is necessary to prevent the operation of the rule of ret judicata. According to the report of the Stamp Officer the plaintiff is bound to pay full Court-fees on each appeal. It was urged, however, on behalf of the plaintiff that full Court fees should be pay able only on one appeal and that a fixed fee of Rs. 10 should be payable upon the other appeal. He pleaded this in view of a remark of the former Taxing Officer in a similar case. It is true that the two appeals arise out of the same suit, but they are two distinct and separate appeals and I can find nothing in the Act which empowers this Court to consolidate it into one appeal and to charge one Court fee. It is a pity that this cannot be done, as it seems unjust to make a man pay double Court-fees because under the law it is necessary for him to file two separate appeals. Still, one must take the law as it stands, and until it is amended, the law demands that on each appeal full Court-fees should be paid. Court-fees will, therefore, adoringly have to he paid on each appeal according to its value and according to the law as it stands. I allow the appellant one month within which to make good the deficiency in Court fees.


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