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

1977 Supreme(MP) 24

C.M.LODHA, U.N.BHACHAWAT
SHAZADI BEGUM – Appellant
Versus
VINOD KUMAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H.G.MISHRA, K.N.Gupta, K.S.Agrawal

LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by one of the defendants against whom the suit has been dismissed by the trial court. There are two prayers contained in the appeal viz. (1) that the appellant should have been awarded costs of the suit by the lower court and (2) that the adverse finding given by the lower Court against the defendant-appellant may be quashed.

( 2 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. H. G. Mishra on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that the appeal is not maintainable. The objection is two-fold. It is urged in the- first instance, that appeal lies from the decree but not against an adverse finding. Then it is argued that the appellant is not entitled to raise the objection regarding costs inasmuch as she has not paid court-fee on the amount of costs claimed by her.

( 3 ) WE might first take up the second branch of the preliminary objection regarding deficiency of court-fee. Admittedly no court-fee has been paid on the amount of costs claimed by the appellant in the memo of appeal. The appeal, therefore, so far as the prayer for award of costs is concerned is liable to be rejected. No prayer for grant of time to make up the deficiency in the court-









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