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

1994 Supreme(Del) 706

VUENDER JAIN, VIJENDER JAIN
S. M. GUHATI – Appellant
Versus
DREAM LAND HOUSE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
RAKESH SAHNI, RIMA KAIRA, S.C.SINGHA

Vijender Jain, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THE Registry has put up objection that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and proper court fee has not been paid on the plaint. Bawa Shiv Charan Singh, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, has argued that the proper court fee has been paid on the plaint. Paragraph-11 of the plaint deals with the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. For the relief of declaration the suit is valued at Rs. 200. 00 on which the court fee of Rs. 20. 00 has been paid. For the relief of mandatory injunction the suit is valued at Rs. l30. 00 and Rs. l3 has been paid as court fee. For the relief of prohibitory injunction the suit is valued at Rs. l30. 00 and court fee of Rs. l3. 00 has been paid on the plaint thereby totalling court fee of Rs. 46. 00.

( 2 ) FOR the purposes of jurisdiction and for the relief of declaration, the suit has been valued at Rs. 6 lakhs, obviously to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that in terms of Section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act, he can value the relief to obtain a declaration for which he has







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