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

1933 Supreme(Mad) 121

KT., HORACE OWEN COMPTON BEASLEY
The Secretary of State for India in Council represented by the Collector – Appellant
Versus
Raghunathan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. The petition is against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam holding that the Court-fee paid on the plaint was sufficient. It is a.petition presented by Government.

2. A preliminary objection is taken as to the maintainability of this petition either under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 107 of the Government of India Act. It is argued that, where an order in regard to Court-fees happens to be in favour of the plaintiff, the High Court will not interfere by way of revision; and, on the other hand, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that, following the decision of a Bench of this High Court in Kulandaivelu Nachiar v. Ramaswami Pandia Thalavan I.L.R. (1927) Mad. 664 : (1927) 55 M.L.R. 345 the High Court has the power to revise such an order. Turning to that decision, it will be seen that in that case the Lower Court passed an order directing the plaintiff to pay additional Court-fees on an erroneous view of the Court-fee payable and refused to proceed with the suit unless such sum was paid. A preliminary objection was taken as to the maintainability of the Revision Petition on the ground


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