Sudarshan Vs. Panchram and ors.

Sudarshan vs Panchram and ors.

Disposition Revision allowed Court Chhattisgarh Decided Apr 08, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/496052

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/496052
Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Judge: K.H.N. Kuranga, C.J.
Decided On: Apr 08, 2002
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 754/2002
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Revision allowed

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Revision allowed
Acts & sections: Court Fees Act, 1870 - Sections 35

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sudarshan

Advocate Ashok Das Vaishnav, Adv.

Respondent

Panchram and ors.

Advocate F.S. Khare and; Pankaj Jaiswal, Advs. and; Deep Kesharwa

Legal References

Acts: Court Fees Act, 1870 - Sections 35
Reported In: 2002(2)MPHT51(CG)

Excerpt

- orderk.h.n. kuranga, c.j. 1. heard.2. the applicant filed civil suit no. 5-a/2001 against the non-applicants for declaration, partition and possession of the suit property. the applicant claimed remission of the court fee of rs. 18,320/- under section 35 of the court fees act. the court below rejected his request on 5-9-2001 and directed him to pay the court fee of rs. 18,320/- by 24-9-2001. since he could not pay the court fee within the aforesaid period, he requested the court to grant 15 days time to deposit the court fee, but the court below refused to grant 15 days time requested for and dismissed the suit on 24-9-2001. it is this order of the court below that is challenged by the applicant/plaintiff in this petition. the court below after directing the applicant to pay the court fee ought to have granted 15 days' time to pay the court fee as requested by the counsel for the applicant and ought not to have dismissed the suit.3. in the circumstances, i am of the opinion that the order dated 24-9-2001 passed by the court below dismissing the suit filed by the applicant cannot be sustained. accordingly, the petition is allowed.4. the order dated 24-9-2001 passed by the court below dismissing the suit filed by the applicant is set aside. the applicant is granted one month's time from today to pay the court fee before the court below.5. with this direction, the civil revision stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.H.N. Kuranga, C.J.

1. Heard.

2. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 5-A/2001 against the non-applicants for declaration, partition and possession of the suit property. The applicant claimed remission of the Court fee of Rs. 18,320/- under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act. The Court below rejected his request on 5-9-2001 and directed him to pay the Court Fee of Rs. 18,320/- by 24-9-2001. Since he could not pay the Court Fee within the aforesaid period, he requested the Court to grant 15 days time to deposit the Court Fee, but the Court below refused to grant 15 days time requested for and dismissed the suit on 24-9-2001. It is this order of the Court below that is challenged by the applicant/plaintiff in this petition. The Court below after directing the applicant to pay the Court fee ought to have granted 15 days' time to pay the Court fee as requested by the counsel for the applicant and ought not to have dismissed the suit.

3. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order dated 24-9-2001 passed by the Court below dismissing the suit filed by the applicant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

4. The order dated 24-9-2001 passed by the Court below dismissing the suit filed by the applicant is set aside. The applicant is granted one month's time from today to pay the Court Fee before the Court below.

5. With this direction, the civil revision stands disposed of.

Same Court & Year Chhattisgarh · 2002 Same Parties Sudarshan vs Panchram and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge K.H.N. Kuranga, C.J. Acts & Sections Court Fees Act, 1870 - Sections 35

Civil