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

2015 Supreme(All) 3754

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Suneet Kumar, J.
Manichari Devi - Appellant
Versus
Khuddi and Others - Respondent
Writ - C No. - 72023 of 2010
Decided On : 03-02-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:- A.K. Gupta,Dinesh Misra

Dismissal of a suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the appropriate recourse for the petitioner.

Headnote:

Court Fee - Valuation of Suit - Dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, but the suit was dismissed due to deficient court fee and failure to deposit the required amount.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from pursuing a regular appeal.

Issues: Dispute over court fee payment, dismissal of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and the petitioner's application for restoration of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that against an order dismissing the suit under Order 7 Rule 11, a regular appeal would lie and not an application under Order 9 Rule 11.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was given the liberty to approach the regular appellate court.

JUDGMENT

Suneet Kumar, J.

The plaintiff petitioner filed an original suit no.166 of 1997 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant 1st set from making any construction over Arazi No.241 as detailed in the plaint.

2. The defendant 1st set filed written statement and disputed? the claim of the plaintiff and also raised an objection regarding the valuation of suit and in sufficient court fee paid by the petitioner.

3. The trial court granted injunction on 14.3.1997. The issues was framed by the Trial Court on 9.4.1947 and was of the view that the valuation of the suit is Rs.3000/-, the plaintiff should accordingly amend the plaint and pay the requisite court fee.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiff amended the plaint with regard to valuation. However, the deficient court fee was not deposited. It appears thereafter the court fell vacant for several years and on 17.11.2004, the suit was dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The petitioner instead of filing regular appeal preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 11 for restoration of the suit.

5. Against an order dismissing the suit under Order 7 Rule 11, a regular appeal would lie and not an and application under Order 9 Rule 11.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to approach the regular appellate Court.

7. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. Dismissal of the petition would not preclude the petitioner from pursuing a regular appeal.

8. No order as to costs.

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 Back to top