Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
Sundaram – Appellant
Versus
Thaiyalnayagi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. constitutional basis for revision petitions (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenges to court fee adequacy (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's findings on filings and objections (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. court fees and valuation assessments (Para 8) |
| 5. final ruling on revision petition and trial court's decision (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER
The defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6, who were unsuccessful in their application in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.21 of 2024, are the revision petitioners in the above Civil Revision Petition.
2.I have heard Mr.B.Vijaya Barathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had taken out an application under Section 11 (2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act , 1972, seeking a direction for decision on the valuation and adequacy of Court fee paid by the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs in O.S.No.21 of 2024. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the suit has been filed for a relief of declaration that the judgment in O.S.No.526 of 2023 dated 14.07.2023 is null and void and also for declaring the plaint
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
