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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 215

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Mrs. Manjit Kaul – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Anil Kumar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Mandeep Kumar Dhot, Advocate, for the Appellant.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. (Oral). - Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala (for short 'the trial Court') whereby the application moved by the respondent-defendant (here-in-after to be referred as 'the defendant') under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for seeking the rejection of the plaint, has been disposed of while observing that the petitioner-plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiff') is liable to pay the ad-valorem court fee qua the relief of recovery of Rs. 10 lac, she (plaintiff) has preferred the instant revision petition.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff in the present revision petition and have also perused the file carefully.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the plaintiff is ready to affix the proper court fee on the plaint at the time of final decision of the civil suit filed by her against the defendant and therefore, the impugned order requiring her at the very initial stage in the suit, to affix the ad-valorem court fee on the amount of the damages claimed by her, is not legally sustainable and dese

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