L.N.MITTAL
Harish Chand – Appellant
Versus
Som Nath – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.