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

1973 Supreme(HP) 3

R.S.PATHAK, CHET RAM THAKUR
Amin Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
M.R. Vasudeva, for Appellant; B. Siterama Advocate General, for the State.

Judgement

R. S. PATHAK, C. J. :- The question before us is whether on a petition for review of a Judgment disposing of a writ petition the Court-fee is payable under Article 4 of the First Schedule or under Article 1(d)(iv) of the Second Schedule of the Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1968. Article 4 of the First Schedule reads :

See for 1st Sch. next page.

Article 1(d)(iv) of the Second Schedule reads :

See for 2nd Sch. next Page.

2. The Schedules specify the Court for payable on the document mentioned therein. Article 4 of the First Schedule specifies that the court-fee payable on "an application for review of judgement ..........." is "one half of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal." It necessarily assumes, in my opinion, that the judgment of which review is sought has been made in a proceeding initiated by a plaint or a memorandum of appeal. That, it seems to me is the only intelligible manner in which reference to the words "the plaint or memorandum of appeal" can be construed. Although the word "plaint" has not been defined in the Court-fees Act, it must be understood in its well-accepted connotation. A plaint has been described as "a private memorial tende





















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