SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 36

R. C. LAHOTI, G. P. MATHUR, P. P. NAOLEKAR
N. R. GOVINDARAJAN – Appellant
Versus
V. K. RAJAGOPALAN – Respondent


ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. There is an objection taken in the written statement that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is deficit and the plea deserves to be heard and decided as a preliminary issue in terms of Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees g and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant (the defendant in the trial court) submits that the issue as to court fee can be heard and decided as a preliminary legal issue, inasmuch as the appellant does not propose to adduce any evidence in support of the plea taken in the written statement in this regard. That being the stand taken, we are satisfied that in terms of Rule 2 Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by Act 104 of 1976, the issue could have been heard and decided as a preliminary issue.

4. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The trial court is directed to frame an issue on the question of court fee in terms of the plea raised in the written statement and hear and decide the same as a preliminary issue before proceeding ahead.

5. No order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top