Madan Lal and anr. Vs. Lajwanti Devi and ors. - Court Judgment
|Court||Punjab and Haryana High Court|
|Case Number||Civil Revn. No. 199 of 1971|
|Judge|| P.C. Pandit, J.|
|Reported in||AIR1972P& H146|
|Acts||Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 115|
|Appellant||Madan Lal and anr.|
|Respondent||Lajwanti Devi and ors.|
|Cases Referred||Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla|
.....for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act.
sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in..........valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee for the relief of possession was rupees. 10,000/- and not rs.400/- as assessed by the plaintiff. the case of the defendants is that the value of the shops in dispute is much more that what has been determined by the trial judge and it is for this purpose that they have filed the present revision petition in this court. 3. the supreme court decision, referred to above, says:-- 'whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the state. the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the high court under section 115 of the code of civil procedure is strictly conditioned by cls.(a) to (c) thereof. the defendant who may believe and even honestly, that proper court-fee has not been paid by the.....
1. This revision petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299.
2. An objection was taken by the defendants-petitioners that proper court-fee had not been paid on the plaint. This matter was tried by the Subordinate Judge, who after appraising the evidence produced in the case, held that the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee for the relief of possession was Rupees. 10,000/- and not Rs.400/- as assessed by the plaintiff. The case of the defendants is that the value of the shops in dispute is much more that what has been determined by the trial Judge and it is for this purpose that they have filed the present revision petition in this Court.
3. The Supreme Court decision, referred to above, says:--
'Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. The jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by Cls.(a) to (c) thereof. The defendant who may believe and even honestly, that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint.'
4. In view of this authority, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
5. Petition dismissed.