Issue of Court Fee cannot be Treated to be a Preliminary Issue [Case Law]

Court Fee - In the event of finding deficiency in Court fee, a notice can be issued to the plaintiff to make good the required Court fee. In the event of his failure to do the same, the suit can be dismissed on that account.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

CR No. 6023 of 2018

Date of Decision: 11.09.2018

State Bank of India and others ....Petitioners

Subhash Chander Jain .....Respondent

Present: Mr. Keshav Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioners.

1. Petitioners have assailed the order dated 15.05.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

2. The application was filed on the ground that a specific amount of compensation was claimed by the plaintiff and requisite Court fee on the said sum was not affixed.

3. The claim of the defendants-petitioners was that in the event of claiming damages, the plaintiff was required to pay ad-valorem Court fee.

4. In Saleem Vs. Usman Gani and another, 2015(3) RCR (Civil) 650, it was held that in a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution, the amount claimed was only tentative amount on which court fee was to be assessed with an undertaking to pay the remaining court fee as and when directed by the Court. Such an undertaking was held to be a valid undertaking and the plaint cannot be rejected on account of such deficiency.

5. In Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (4) RCR (Civil) 515 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even in case of specific amount claimed by the plaintiff, the determination would be at a subsequent stage on the basis of quality of evidence to be led by the parties. Though the damages cannot be granted without payment of requisite court fee but in case damages are required to be calculated, a fixed court fee is to be paid, but on the quantum determined by the Court and the balance court fee can be paid at the time when final decree is drawn.

6. The view of Hem Raj Vs. Harchet Singh, 1993 Civil Court Cases 48, was endorsed wherein it was held that issue of court fee cannot be treated to be a preliminary issue. In a suit for damages and compensation, the tentative valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee cannot be disputed.

7. Relying upon the aforesaid precedents, this Court in Civil Revision No.5893 of 2016 titled 'Amandeep Sidhu vs M/s Ultratech Cement Limited and others' decided on 05.09.2016 has also taken the aforesaid view that a contingent decree can be passed. In the event of finding deficiency in Court fee, a notice can be issued to the plaintiff to make good the required Court fee. In the event of his failure to do the same, the suit can be dismissed on that account.

8. The view expressed by this Court in Amandeep Sidhu's case (supra) was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.3500 of 2017.

9. In view of aforesaid, there is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order.

10. This revision petition is accordingly, dismissed.

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Land Acquisition - National Highway - Inadequate Compensation - What is the Remedy [JUDGMENT]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 (1) - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G(5) & 3J - What is the remedy of the appellant to redress his grievance regarding inadequate compensation granted for the land acquired - The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators - It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. [Paras 15 – 18]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog