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

1998 Supreme(AP) 725

C.V.N.SASTRY
Viraj Constructions – Appellant
Versus
P. Pandu – Respondent


C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration.

( 2 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the lower Court returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.

( 3 ) THE suit is filed for a permanent injunction in respect of Ac. 3-27 guntas of land situated in Begumpet, Hyderabad. The plaintiff valued the relief claimed under Section 26 (c) of the Andhra Pradcsh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short the Act ), at Rs. 10,000. 00 and paid Court-fees thereon. The lower Court was of the opinion that the relief has to be valued at more than Rs. 1 lakh and so, it returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.

( 4 ) UNDER Section 26 (c) of the Act, the fees shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. Undoubtedly, the Court has power to revise the valuation made by the plaintiff and value the relief as it thinks fit and proper. Section 11 (1) (a) of the Act provides that in every suit, the Court shall, before ordering the plaint to be registered, decide on the al


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