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

2016 Supreme(MP) 398

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI
Anil Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Urmila Tripathi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri Kamal Jain, Learned Counsel

ORDER :

S.A. Dharmadhikari, J.

This revision under Section 115 CPC arises out of order dated 15/03/2010 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Gwalior, whereby the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit for declaration of the Partition Deed as null and void and for permanent injunction. Accordingly, to the petitioner/defendant suit was arbitrarily valued by the plaintiff for Rs.4,00,000/- as mentioned in the partition deed and had affixed Rs.2000/- fixed Court fee for declaration and Rs.100/- Court fee for permanent injunction. As such, ad veloram Court fee under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fee Act, 1878 (herein after referred to as "Act") was required to be paid in view of the fact that the partition deed dated 30/11/2000 has been registered with the Sub-Registrar office and the same is an admitted position.

3. In response to the aforesaid objection, the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC lacks bona fides and has been belatedly filed. He has properly valued the suit and has affixed appropriate Court fee and the Cour











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