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

2012 Supreme(P&H) 1232

L.N.MITTAL
Harish Chand – Appellant
Versus
Som Nath – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, defendant no.2 Harish Chand has assailed order dated 24.08.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-4) moved by defendants no.1 and 2 (petitioner and proforma respondent no.2) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) for rejection of plaint due to non-payment of ad valorem court fee.

2. Respondent no.1 – plaintiff has filed suit vide plaint (Annexure P-2) for possession of the disputed property by mandatory injunction alleging that defendants were licensees under the plaintiff and their license stood terminated. The plaintiff also sought mesne profits from the date of filing of suit onwards.

3. Defendants no.1 and 2, in their application (Annexure P-4), alleged that since the plaintiff is claiming possession of the suit property and mesne profits, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on market value of the suit property.

4. The aforesaid application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing reply (Annexure P-5) alleging that suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable







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