Skip to content


Gopal Krishan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. No. 37/C of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1955P& H144
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 110; Constitution of Indi - Article 133
AppellantGopal Krishan
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and anr.
Appellant Advocate Tek Chand, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S.M. Sikri, Adv.-General
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
.....high court. it has not made any provision 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..........(sic) diction given by the plaintiff was rs. 33,498/-(sic) objection was taken by the defendant, union india to the valuation of the suit, but on 26-3-1956 this plea was given up and the counsel for the union of india made the following statement:'i give up the plea regarding the value of thesuit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction.'the suit does lie in the present form.' there was no controversy in the trial court, there fore as to the value of the suit, and the union '' of india had accepted the value put by the plaintiff.4. in his affidavit the plaintiff has valued the subject matter of the dispute on appeal to the supreme court to be rs. 39.490/-. the learned advocate-general who has appeared for the union of india, has taken objection to this value and submits that even.....
Judgment:

Kapur, J.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to . the Supreme Court under Order XLV of the Civil Procedure Code read with Article 133, Constitution of India and Sections 109 and 110, Civil P. G.

2. The judgment against which appeal is sough-to be taken is one of reversal and the only question is whether it complies with the provisions Section 110, Civil P. C.

3. In the plaint the value for purposes of (sic) diction given by the plaintiff was Rs. 33,498/-(sic) objection was taken by the defendant, Union India to the valuation of the suit, but on 26-3-1956 this plea was given up and the counsel for the Union of India made the following statement:

'I give up the plea regarding the value of thesuit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction.'The suit does lie in the present form.'

There was no controversy in the trial Court, there fore as to the value of the suit, and the Union '' of India had accepted the value put by the plaintiff.

4. In his affidavit the plaintiff has valued the subject matter of the dispute on appeal to the Supreme Court to be Rs. 39.490/-. The learned Advocate-General who has appeared for the Union of India, has taken objection to this value and submits that even if he admitted in the trial court that the value of the suit was Rupee, 33,498/- it is for the Court to determine the value for purposes of appeal to the Supreme Court am unable to agree. In this particular case (sic) parties in the trial court agreed, the objection taken to the jurisdictional value was withdrawn, and both parties admitted that fact to be proved: It must, therefore, be taken to have been proved and I do not think that the learned Advocate-General can now take objection to the value of the subject-matter of the dispute on appeal to the Supreme Court, particularly when he has placed no material on the record in opposition to the affidavit of the plaintiff from which any]- different conclusion could be drawn.

5. I would therefore allow this application. The petitioner will have his costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100'/ -,

Harnam Singh, J.

6. I agree.


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