Skip to content


Velayudhan Pilial and Narayana Piliai Vs. Thanu Pillai and Krishnan Nair - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1956CriLJ421
AppellantVelayudhan Pilial and Narayana Piliai
RespondentThanu Pillai and Krishnan Nair
Excerpt:
- - 2. notice of the revision petition was given to the counter petitioner as well as to the advocate general......magistrate insisted that the advocates who were originally appearing in the case should file fresh vakalaths. this revision has been preferred from the order directing the counter-petitioner's advocate to file a fresh vakalath.2. notice of the revision petition was given to the counter petitioner as well as to the advocate general. on behalf of the state it was submitted that the order could not be supported. the counter-petitioner did not appear in pursuance to the notice issued to him. the order in question cannot be supported.it is not as though a fresh case is filed before the additional sub-divisional magistrate. the provision for the levy of court fees on vakalaths is contained in clause 5 of sch (ii) of the c. f. act that contemplates a vakalath for the conduct of one case.....
Judgment:
ORDER

T.K. Joseph, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the counter-petitioner in Miscellaneous Case No. 28 of 1954 of the Additional Special Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, Trivandrum. This case was originally pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Trivandrum, as Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 1954.

After the case was transferred to the Additional Court the learned Magistrate insisted that the Advocates who were originally appearing in the case should file fresh Vakalaths. This Revision has been preferred from the order directing the counter-petitioner's Advocate to file a fresh Vakalath.

2. Notice of the revision petition was given to the counter petitioner as well as to the Advocate General. On behalf of the State it was submitted that the order could not be supported. The counter-petitioner did not appear in pursuance to the notice issued to him. The order in question cannot be supported.

It is not as though a fresh case is filed before the additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The provision for the levy of court fees on Vakalaths is contained in Clause 5 of Sch (II) of the C. F. Act That contemplates a Vakalath for the conduct of one case and provides for levying a court-fee of Gne rupee.

The mere fact that for some administrative purpose the case was transferred to another officer does not mean that it is not the case in which the Vakalath was originally filed. The reasons stated by the learned Magistrate are quite unsustainable. The order of the court below is therefore reversed and the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.


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