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

1962 Supreme(Ori) 100

BARMAN
MAYADHAR MISRA – Appellant
Versus
UPENDRA KUMAR RAUT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D. Mohanty, R.K. Kar and Y.S.N. Murty, for the Appellant; A.G., for the Respondent

JUDGMENT :

Barman, J. - The question referred to me by the Taxing Officer (Registrar) for decision in this:

Whether in a revision filed against an order in appeal whose valuation is different from the valuation of the suit, court-fees should be charged under Clause (d) of Article 1 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act on the value of the appeal or on the value of the suit.

2. The proceeding out of which this civil revision directly arises was an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Balasore who set aside in part the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Bhadrak and made an order for retrial and fresh decision. It is against the said order of retrial passed by the lower appellate court that this civil revision has been filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners herein. The Stamp Reporter of this Court raised an objection to the adequacy of the court-fees paid in the civil revision matter. According to him, as the valuation of the suit is more than Rs. 1000/-, court-fee of Rs. 15/- (including increased sur-charge) is payable on it, but only court-fee of Rs. 7.50 nP. has been paid by the Petitioners fixing the valuation of the revision at Rs. 450/- on the basis of the valuation of t



















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