S.B.SINHA, S.MUKERJEE, D.K.JAIN, A.D.SINGH, MADAN B.LOKUR
RAVINDER KUMAR RISHI – Appellant
Versus
SUSHMA RISHI – Respondent
( 1 ) A very interesting point has arisen for consideration viz whether court fee is payable on a compromise application under order 23 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the compromise decree drawn up pursuant thereto whereunder a large amount happened to be paid to the defendant.
( 2 ) IN the present case a plaint containing the following prayer was registered as a suit:-
"in the facts and circumstances of the case it is respectfully prayed that the hon ble Court be pleased to pass a decree that the Defendant deliver to the plaintiff vacant possession of the portion, more fully described in yellow in the site plan annexure herewith, of property bearing municipal number A-54, kailash Colony, New Delhi of which portion the plaintiff has been dispossessed without consent and otherwise in due course of law. "
( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that defendant had allegedly trespassed into the suit property on 20. 7. 1997, and had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff of two rooms in the suit property. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the cause of action again arose on 8-8. 1997 when the defendant upon release on bail in the Case fir No. 285/97,
Gujarat State Financial Corpn. v. Natson Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
REFERRED TO : R.Rukmaji Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
Followed On : Laj Khosla v. Randhir Khosla and Anr.
Bibhooti Bhushan Chatterjee v. State of Bihar
Bibhooti Bhushan Chatterjee vs. State of bihar reported as AIR 1960 SC 128
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.