Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Smt. Krishna Pati Devi ors. Vs. the State of Bihar ors.

Smt. Krishna Pati Devi ors. vs The State of Bihar ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Jul 16, 1998
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/122243

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
L.P.A. No. 580 and 1998
Subject
;Civil

Case Summary

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

Court Fees Act, 1870-Schedule II-Payment of Court fee-Common interest--If there are many petitioners, all having common interest--Payment of separate Court fee individually--Held, not necessary. -

Key legal issue
;Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Krishna Pati Devi ors.

Respondent

The State of Bihar ors.

Court's Analysis

Prior History

1. This L.P.A. is directed against the order dated 23.4.1998. Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh appears on behalf of the appellants and Junior Counsel to Standing Counsel No. 7 Shri Praveen Kumar appears on behalf of the State. Since the point involved in this L.PA. is short, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties, this L.PA. is being disposed of finally.
2. The point involved in this appeal is that if by one notification several persons are affected and jointly that notification is c

Excerpt

court fees act, 1870-schedule ii-payment of court fee-common interest--if there are many petitioners, all having common interest--payment of separate court fee individually--held, not necessary. - .....in the sense that each of the petitioners has suffered individual injury as a result of the impugned order, then in that case though the interest is similar it cannot be termed as common interest and in such type of cases separate court fee is required to be paid.4. having heard counsel and going through the reasons of the learned writ court, we are of the opinion that whenever interest is common or similar, whether by one stroke of pen, if the impugned notification can be set aside, one set of court fee is only required. in the instant case, considering the relief of the petitioners, the relief as claimed is common. it is not that though by one notification their services were terminated but they have claimed different relief. this is how the common interests between the co-petitioners are to be judged in respect of payment of court fee. this being so, we are of the opinion that if one set of court fee is paid while challenging the impugned order in the writ petition, that is sufficient and for individual petitioners no separate court fee is required.5. for the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside. now, the case will go back to the appropriate court having jurisdiction to hear and decide it. with this direction, this l.pa. is finally disposed of.

Full Judgment

1. This L.P.A. is directed against the order dated 23.4.1998. Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh appears on behalf of the appellants and Junior Counsel to Standing Counsel No. 7 Shri Praveen Kumar appears on behalf of the State. Since the point involved in this L.PA. is short, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties, this L.PA. is being disposed of finally.

2. The point involved in this appeal is that if by one notification several persons are affected and jointly that notification is challenged, whether separate sets of Court fees are required to challenge that notification or one set of Court fee would be in accordance with the law.

3. The learned Judge by the impugned order dated 23.4.1998 has reached to the conclusion that though by the notification all the petitioners are affected but there is difference between common interest and similar interest The interests among the petitioners are common or joint when they claim an interest as class or group. In that case only one set of Court fee is payable. But when the interest is not common but similar in the sense that each of the petitioners has suffered individual injury as a result of the impugned order, then in that case though the interest is similar it cannot be termed as common interest and in such type of cases separate Court fee is required to be paid.

4. Having heard counsel and going through the reasons of the learned writ Court, we are of the opinion that whenever interest is common or similar, whether by one stroke of pen, if the impugned notification can be set aside, one set of Court fee is only required. In the instant case, considering the relief of the petitioners, the relief as claimed is common. It is not that though by one notification their services were terminated but they have claimed different relief. This is how the common interests between the co-petitioners are to be judged in respect of payment of Court fee. This being so, we are of the opinion that if one set of Court fee is paid while challenging the impugned order in the writ petition, that is sufficient and for individual petitioners no separate Court fee is required.

5. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside. Now, the case will go back to the appropriate Court having jurisdiction to hear and decide it. With this direction, this L.PA. is finally disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial