Date of Decision: 7.4.2014 Vs. Geeta Vasdev and Others

Date of Decision: 7.4.2014 vs Geeta Vasdev and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Apr 07, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1137347

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1137347
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Apr 07, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Date of Decision: 7.4.2014

Respondent

Geeta Vasdev and Others

Excerpt

.....lacs was claimed against the defendants, the petitioners before this court. the petitioners/defendants filed an application under order 7 rule 11 of the cpc for rejection of the plaint on account of want of affixing ad valorem court fee. in response to the said application, the plaintiffs scaled down the unliquidated damages and brought it down to rs.5.00 lacs and the plaintiffs were called upon by the trial court to affix ad valorem court fee accordingly. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit is khan md.firoz 2014.04.12 11:33 intended to harass his clients, and with respect to respondents no.2 and 3, the i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh cr no.2522 of 2014 :2: minors represented through their mother as guardian, the matter should be treated as withdrawal of suit qua them and for this, order 23 rule 1 of the cpc is pressed. these are no reasons for interfering in the impugned order dated 20 august 2013 passed by the learned trial court calling upon the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on the balance sum of rs.5.00 lacs in a suit for recovery of damages. the claim can well be reduced. dismissed. (rajiv narain raina) judge74.2014 mfk khan md.firoz 2014.04.12 11:33 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2522 of 2014 Date of Decision: 7.4.2014 Jiwan Modi and others ....Petitioners Versus Geeta Vasdev & Others ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present : Mr.N.K.Vadehra, Advocate for the petitioners 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

(Oral) It is open to the plaintiff to scale down relief claimed in his suit and to make good the deficient court fee accordingly.

If respondents no.2 and 3 are min ORS.that would not be a ground for this court to non-suit the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff no.1 is the mother of plaintiffs no.2 and 3.

In the suit originally filed, damages to the tune of Rs.50.00 lacs was claimed against the defendants, the petitioners before this Court.

The petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on account of want of affixing ad valorem court fee.

In response to the said application, the plaintiffs scaled down the unliquidated damages and brought it down to Rs.5.00 lacs and the plaintiffs were called upon by the trial court to affix ad valorem court fee accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit is Khan Md.Firoz 2014.04.12 11:33 intended to harass his clients, and with respect to respondents no.2 and 3, the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh CR No.2522 of 2014 :2: minors represented through their mother as guardian, the matter should be treated as withdrawal of suit qua them and for this, Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC is pressed.

These are no reasons for interfering in the impugned order dated 20 August 2013 passed by the learned trial court calling upon the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem court fee on the balance sum of Rs.5.00 lacs in a suit for recovery of damages.

The claim can well be reduced.

Dismissed.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE74.2014 MFK Khan Md.Firoz 2014.04.12 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Date of Decision: 7.4.2014 vs Geeta Vasdev and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition