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

2003 Supreme(MP) 786

UMA NATH SINGH
M. P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD – Appellant
Versus
KAMALA SHARMA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.M.Naik, K.N.Gupta, Vivek Kedkar

UMA NATH SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision calls in question an order dated 24-2-03 in Civil Suit no. 69-A/2002 passed by learned 9th Civil judge, Class-I, Gwalior, rejecting the preliminary objections raised by the applicant/ defendant to the valuation of the suit.

( 2 ) IT is said that the non-applicants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the trial Court and paid a total court-fee of Rs. 240. 00 on valuation of the suit. As the question of court-fee pertains to jurisdiction and thus goes to the roots of the matter, the applicant raised certain preliminary objections. It is urged that learned judge without going into merits of the issue has rejected the plea. Now the judgment is assailed mainly on the ground that the second relief being a prayer for permanent injunction is consequential, therefore, the non-applicants ought to have paid ad valorem court-fee on valuation amount of rs. 36,000. 00. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in the case of Comolata dutta v. Ishwar Industries Ltd. , AIR 1966 mp 169. The relevant portion of the said judgment on reproduc







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