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

2023 Supreme(MP) 28

VIVEK AGARWAL
Balak Ram Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Sonu Barman – Respondent


Advocates:
Sanjay Kumar Sharma for petitioner;
Anup Shukla for respondent.

ORDER

1. This Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved of order dated 28.1.2020, passed in Civil Suit No.723-A/2018, by learned Civil Judge, Junior section, Jabalpur.

2. Petitioner’s contention is that respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance and in the alternative had claimed for refund of the advance paid by him. Plaintiff paid Court Fees on Rs.1 Lac i.e. the amount which was sought to be refunded and did not pay the Court Fees in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement for specific performance of which was sought.

3. Petitioner had moved an application under Order 7 rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short). That application was allowed vide order dated 2.12.2019 and plaintiff was directed to pay Court Fees as per the terms and conditions of the agreement on Rs.4,26,000/- which was the subject matter of the agreement. Thereafter, case was fixed on 24.1.2020 when instead of asking the plaintiff to first pay the Court Fees in accordance with the earlier order dated 2.12.2019, application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC was taken and defendant was given time

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