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

1984 Supreme(MP) 40

C.P.SEN
ISMAIL KHAN – Appellant
Versus
SHANKARLAL CHOURASIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
L.P.SINGH, R.P.JAIN

C. P. SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference by the Taxing Officer for opinion of this Court as to what court-fee is required to be paid on the cross-objection preferred by the respondent plaintiff arising out of second appeal filed by the defendant-tenant against the decree for eviction passed against him under Section 12 (1) (c) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for subletting. The plaintiff had also sought eviction under 12 (1) (a) and (f) on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for business purposes which has been disallowed by the Courts below.

( 2 ) THE respondent has filed cross-objection under Order 41, Rule 22, C. P. C. and is praying for a decree on these two additional grounds also and has affixed a court-fee stamp of Rs. 7. 50 which is payable on a miscellaneous appeal. According to the Taxing Officer, since the plaintiff is seeking eviction on two additional grounds also, he must pay ad valorem court-fee under Article 1 of Schedule 1 of the Court-fees Act as it cannot be said that the respondent is simply supporting the decree because he is claiming a finding in his favour on two ether grounds for eviction.

( 3 ) AFTER having heard the parties, I am






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