Skip to content


Subedar Baman Ram Vs. Mt. Masti and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberF.A.F.O. No. 5 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1960HP14
ActsLimitation Act, 1908 - Sections 5 and 14; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 33, Rules 10 and 11
AppellantSubedar Baman Ram
RespondentMt. Masti and anr.
Appellant Advocate Indar Singh, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Kirti Ram, Adv. for Respondent No. 1 and; T.P. Vaidya, Government Adv. for Respondent 2
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
.....arrears of maintenance and future maintenance at the rate of rs. 75/- p.m. the plaintiff had been permitted to sue as a pauper. on 2-9-1958, i.e. the date fixed for recording the plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff put in a petition to the effect that she had recovered the arrears of maintenance from the defendant, out of court. accordingly, she did not wish to prosecute the suit any further and desired that it should be 'consigned to the record-room'. on the basis of this petition, the lower court dismissed the suit. 8. having come so far, the learned subordinate judge goes on to say: 'no doubt the plaintiff in the compromise as well as in her statement, has stated that the suit be dismissed, but her statement and the compromise show that she has got the required relief from the.....order11. i accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order of the court below, directing the recovery of a sum of rs. 946.87 np from the appellant by way of court-fees under order 33, rule 10. in place of that order, i substitute another order under order 33, rule 11, directing the plaintiff-respondent, mt. masti, to pay the court-fees, which would have been paid by her, if she had not been permitted to sue as a pauper. the appellant will get his costs of the appeal from the respondents.
Judgment:
ORDER

11. I accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Court below, directing the recovery of a sum of Rs. 946.87 nP from the appellant by way of court-fees under Order 33, Rule 10. In place of that order, I substitute another order under Order 33, Rule 11, directing the plaintiff-respondent, Mt. Masti, to pay the court-fees, which would have been paid by her, if she had not been permitted to sue as a pauper. The appellant will get his costs of the appeal from the respondents.


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