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

2018 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 778

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ
Chandrakumar Firturam Patel v. Rajesh Kumar Ghansiram and Others


Table of Content
1. jurisdiction analysis under cpc (Para 1 , 2)
2. court fee issue and trial procedure (Para 3 , 4)
3. expedited trial directive (Para 5 , 6)

1. This writ petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is instituted by the plaintiff challenging the decision rendered by the Court below on the question of sufficiency of court fee, by considering it as a preliminary issue.

2. Hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner / Plaintiff and the learned Government Advocate, it is noted that the suit has reached the stage of trial after framing of issues. Once issues are framed, it is the mandate of R.2(1) of O.14, Rule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; for short 'the CPC'; that the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of R.2 pronounce judgment on all issues. Sub-rule (2) of R.2 of O.14, CPC enumerates the situations in which a suit may be disposed of on an issue of law only. This means that unless the issue is one of law only, the Court cannot deal with that matter as a preliminary issue. Going to clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of R.2 of O.14, CPC, it can be seen that such issue of law should relate to jurisdiction of the Court. This is the relevant po

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