Back
1927 Supreme(Nagpur) 222
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Findlay
BALAJI AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
BALLABH DAS – Respondent
Decided on : 07-11-1927
An ad valorem Court fee should be paid on the petition of appeal for a final decree under Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Headnote:
Court Fees - Civil Procedure Code - Final Decree - The court held that an ad valorem Court fee should be paid on the petition of appeal for a final decree under Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, as it equally stops the litigation and anyone desiring to appeal against the connected order must clearly pay Court-fees as in any other appeal from a final decree.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed an appeal against the order granting a final decree of foreclosure in favor of the respondent. They raised objections regarding the jurisdiction of the lower Court to make the decree final and the lack of notice to appellants before the final decree was passed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower Court had jurisdiction to make the decree final and that an ad valorem Court fee should be paid on the petition of appeal for a final decree under Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the lower Court, Notice to appellants, Payment of Court fees on the petition of appeal
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the final decree under Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code equally stops the litigation, and anyone desiring to appeal against the connected order must clearly pay Court-fees as in any other appeal from a final decree.
Final Decision: The court ordered that an ad valorem fee is payable on the petition of appeal and allowed time for making up the deficiency in Court-fees.
Findlay, J C—The appellants, who were defendants 1 to 5 in the lower Court, have filed the present appeal against the order of the District Judge, Chhindwara, dated 2nd July 1925, granting decree final of foreclosure in favour of defendant 10, Ballabhdas, who is respondent in this appeal. Preliminary decree had been granted on 29th July 1924, the said Ballabhdas being given a final right to redeem. The grounds of appeal are that as respondent had made no application under Order 34, Rule 3(2), Civil P.C., the lower Court had no jurisdiction to make the decree final and that no notice to appellants had issued before decree final was passed. The third ground, viz., that the lower Court should have awaited the decision of this Court in Balaji v. Ballabhdas, 1928 AIR(Nag) 145, before granting decree above, can be easily disposed of. On the said revision, the lower Court's order of substitution of defendant 10 was questioned, but that order necessarily merges in the order for final decree and can only now be questioned in the appeal therefrom.
2. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that ad valorem Court-fee should be paid on the petition of appeal, and the decisions in Bajrangi Lal v. Mahabir Kunwar, 1913 35 ILR(All) 476 and Jankibai v. Chimna, 1920 22 BLR 811, have been relied on in this connexion. On behalf of the appellants it has been sought to distinguish these cases on the ground that they relate to final decrees for sale under Order 34, Rules 4 and 5, Civil P.C., while here we are concerned with Rule 3 idem. I am unable to see that any difference of principle arises in the matter. The final decree under Rule 3 equally stops the litigation and anyone desiring to appeal against the connected order must clearly pay Court-fees as in any other appeal from a final decree.
3. The appellants seek to question the respondent's very right to obtain a decree final and this relief can already be valued in money, I am of opinion, therefore, that an ad valorem fee is payable on the petition of appeal and I order accordingly. I allow time until 1st December 1927, for making up the deficiency in Court-fees and thereafter further orders will be passed.
