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

1999 Supreme(Ker) 7

S.SANKARASUBBAN
Varghese – Appellant
Versus
Devi Academy – Respondent


Judgment :-

S. Sankarasubban, J.

Plaintiffs are the petitioners. The suit was instituted for money. According to them, for the second plaintiff, the first plaintiff made a cash deposit of Rs. 1,15,000/- with the first defendant and the suit was filed to recover the same. Along with the suit, a court fee of Rs. 835/-was paid. The balance court fee of Rs. 8,340 was paid not in time. The balance court fee ought to have been paid on 21.8.1997.

2. According to the plaintiffs, the case was posted for issues on 7.8.1997. But on that date the plaintiffs and counsel were absent because of an inadvertant mistake in noting the posting date as 1.9.1997 instead of 7.8.1997. Issues were framed and the case was posted on 21.8.1997 for paying balance court fee. But the counsel for the plaintiffs was under the impression that the case was posted on 1.9.1997. He was not present in court on 21.8.1997. Hence the balance court fee was not paid on that date. On 21.8.1997, the plaint was rejected for non-payment of balance court fee. On 3.9.1997 the plaintiffs filed an application under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure supported by an affidavit stating the circumstances under which the balance court fe




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