Back
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Brij Mohan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Rajeev Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.
By way of the instant revision-petition, the petitioner-defendant (here-in-after to be referred as 'the defendant') has laid challenge to the order (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari (for short 'the trial Court') on 14.09.2023 in Civil Suit No.164 of 2023 titled as 'Rajeev Kumar Vs. Brij Mohan ', whereby his prayer for the rejection of plaint in view of the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been declined.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts emerging from the perusal of the file and culminating in the filing of the present revision petition, are that the respondent-plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiff') filed the afore-referred Civil Suit against the defendant for seeking a decree for the recovery of Rs. 19,20,000/-. In para No.8 of the plaint, he (plaintiff) categorically pleaded that the Court-fee worth Rs. 47,550/- was to be affixed on the plaint but due to insufficiency of the Court-fee stamps, the Suit was being filed with the stamp-paper worth Rs. 50/- and the remaining Court-fee would be paid/affixed later-on. Then, on 02.08.2023, he (plaintiff) m
The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction and the limitations on the defendant's right to move superior courts against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint.
The fixation of court fee is a matter between the plaintiff and the State, and the defendant has no right to move the superior court by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of co....
The Court has the discretion to extend the time for deposit of the court fee, and once the court fee is paid within the extended time, it would be treated as having been paid at the first instance.
In suits for money, including suits for damages, the ad-valorem court fee payable shall be computed according to the amount claimed, as per Section 7 (i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
A revision petition regarding inadequacy of court fee is not maintainable when jurisdiction is not in question, as it is deemed a dispute between the litigant and the Registry.
The issue of proper court fees being paid is essentially an issue between the plaintiff and the State, and the defendant cannot be termed as an 'aggrieved party' to invoke the revisional jurisdiction....
Section 2 (2) C.P.C which defines the expression “decree” and thereafter held that definition of decree in Section 2 (2) C.P.C shall be deemed to include an order rejecting a plaint.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
