Skip to content


Kundan Lal Tak Vs. Bhanwar Lal Tak and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision No. 404 of 1969
Judge
Reported in1971WLN(UC)24
AppellantKundan Lal Tak
RespondentBhanwar Lal Tak and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
rajasthan court fees act - section 24(d)--suit for declaration--no prayer for consequential relief--held, section 24(d) applies.;the plaintiff's suit being one for a declaration and there being no prayer for consequential relief section 24(d) prima facie would govern the present case. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen..........relief, has omitted to do so and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. no exception can be taken to this finding also. the plaintiff being not in a position to pay court fee wants to amend the suit by amending the relief for court fee purposes of also to make his suit maintainable. the plaintiff may submit an application for amendment of the plaint in the trial court which shall be considered on merits.4. the present revision is without merits and is dismissed. there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

L.N. Chhangani, J.

1. This is plaintiff's revision against the order of the District Judge, Jaipur District dated 21-5-69, deciding two issues Nos. 6 and 9. The issues read as follows-

6. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient?

9. Whether in the absence of a prayer for consequential relief the present suit, which is for declaration, is maintainable?

2. On issue No. 6, the trial Judge has expressed an opinion that the plaintiffs suit falls under Section 24(d) of the Court Fees Act. He, however, has not yet determined the amount of court fee payable as the parties have put forward varying versiens about the valuation of the property and a correct valuation can only be ascertained after evidence. The plaintiff's suit being one for a declaration and there being no prayer for consequential relief Section 24(d) prima facie would govern the present case. At any rate, it is open to the petitioner to challenge this order against the order finally determining the court fee payable by him. It will be unnecessary to record any' firm finding on this point.

3. As regards issue No. 9, the trial court has held that the plaintiffs being in a position to seek consequential relief, has omitted to do so and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. No exception can be taken to this finding also. The plaintiff being not in a position to pay court fee wants to amend the suit by amending the relief for court fee purposes of also to make his suit maintainable. The plaintiff may submit an application for amendment of the plaint in the trial court which shall be considered on merits.

4. The present revision is without merits and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


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