B.DAYAL, A.P.SRIVASTAVA
RAM KATORI – Appellant
Versus
CHAMANLAL – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS is a court-fee matter. The Chief Inspector of Stamps when examining the records of this court discovered that in First Appeal No. 93 of 1954 which had arisen out of suit No. 140 of 1951 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Saharanpur, proper court-fee had not been paid on the plaint. The court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal was also found to be insufficient. He therefore, recommended that additional court-fee be realised not only from the appellant who had filed the appeal but also from the respondents who had filed the plaint in the Court of the civil Judge. We are not concerned at present with the question whether any additional court-fee is payable in respect of the memorandum of appeal. The dispute be-fore us relates to the question of court-fee payable on the plaint. The Chief Inspector of Stamps has prayed that the deficiency in court-fee on the plaint should be directed to be made good. When the respondents were informed of this report an objection was filed on their behalf. The report as well as the objection are now before us for disposal.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case as were set out in the plaint were that there were two brothers Cha-man l
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.