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

1966 Supreme(AP) 37

Maharaj Kumarika Subarna Rekha Mani Devi etc. – Appellant
Versus
Ramakrishna Deo – Respondent


JAGANMOHAN REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) I have had the advantage and benefit of perusing the judgments of my learned Brothers Kumarayya, J. , and Venkatesam, J. As the contentions urged before us have been set out by Kumarayya, J. , in his judgement, I find it unnecessary to reiterate them in any great detail. The question before us is what is the Court-fee payable under the Andhra court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1956) (hereinafter called "the act") on a memorandum of appeal filed against an order rejecting the plaint under Order 7, rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. Order 7, rule 11 mentions four grounds on anyone of which a plaint may be rejected It reads thus:"the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, failed to do so, (c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written on paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff does not make. good the deficiency within the time, if any, granted by the Court; (d) Where the suit appears from the statement











































































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