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

1996 Supreme(Kar) 474

S.VENKATARAMAN
M. NARASIMHA MURTHY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


S. VENKATARAMAN, J.

( 1 ) WHETHER an appeal against an Order under Rule e 4 of Order 47, Civil Procedure Code granting an application for review can be maintained even after the disposal of the original suit in which that Order was passed.

( 2 ) IN a suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants a question regarding the valuation of the suit for purposes of court fee and about the sufficiency of the court fee paid by the plaintiffs had arisen for consideration. The plaintiffs amended the prayer column and the lower court passed an Order on 31-7-1995 to the effect that the valuation was proper and the court fee paid was sufficient. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant filed an application for review of that Order under Order 47, Rule 1 read with sections 114 and 151, Civil Procedure Code. The court allowed that application on 30-9-1995 and reviewing the earlier Order passed by it called upon the plaintiffs to furnish the correct market value of the suit property and to pay the court fee afresh after adducing additional evidence, if any. Against that Order the appellants initially filed civil revision petition No. 3563 of 1995 in this court. As there was objection regarding the maintainability o















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