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

2010 Supreme(MP) 536

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA
Keshrimal – Appellant
Versus
Dhanraj – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Sanjay Sharma for appellant;
R.N. Gupta, for respondent No.4.

ORDER

1. Heard on IA 3884 of 2010 which has been tiled by the parties for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the parties. A further prayer has been made in the application for refund of the court Fee.

2. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant states that since the appellant, after the aforesaid compromise is also entitled to refund of the court fee as per section 89 of CPC read with section 16 of the Court-fees Act, therefore, either the present appeal may be referred to the Lok-Adalat or refund of the court fee be ordered by this Court.

3. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the fact that the reference of the matter to the Lok-Adalat would cause unnecessary delay for disposal of the present appeal, I allow the prayer made in the application and dispose of the present appeal as withdrawn. As a result thereof, I further order to that in exercise of the powers under section 89 CPC read with section 16 of the court-fees Act, the court fee paid by the appellant on the present appeal shall be refunded, as per the procedure contained in section 16 of the court-fees Act.


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