Pradeep Kumar Badsar Vs. Jagganath

Pradeep Kumar Badsar vs Jagganath

Disposition Petition allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 27, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/499388

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/499388
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: A.K. Shrivastava, J.
Decided On: Mar 27, 2003
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 833/2001
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Court-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 7; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Sections 12(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115 - Order 7, Rule 11

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pradeep Kumar Badsar

Advocate Sumesh Bajaj, Adv.

Respondent

Jagganath

Advocate Hansa Agrawal, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Court-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 7; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Sections 12(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115 - Order 7, Rule 11
Cases Referred: Madak Chand Jain v. Ms. Fatima Bi
Reported In: 2003(2)MPHT230; 2004(1)MPLJ197

Excerpt

- ordera.k. shrivastava, j.1. this revision petition has been directed against the order dated 13-3-2001 passed by the court below allowing the application of the defendant filed under order 7 rule 11, cpc and directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee. the suit for eviction has been filed by the applicant under the provisions of madhya pradesh accommodation control act, 1961, against the respondent.2. under section 7(xi) of the court fees act, 1870, if a suit is filed on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant, the court-fee is required to be paid according to the amount of the rent of the immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. the division bench of this court in the case of madak chand jain v. ms. fatima bi, 2000(1) m.p.h.t. 46 = 1999 (2) jlj 254, hasheld that in an eviction suit filed on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant on the ground of encroachment, i.e., 12 (1) (o) of the said act, no separate court fee is payable encroached area. the court-fee paid on annual rental value is sufficient.3. in this review of the matter, the trial court has acted illegally with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and hence it cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.4. the revision petition is allowed. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 13-3-2001 passed by the Court below allowing the application of the defendant filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC and directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fee. The suit for eviction has been filed by the applicant under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, against the respondent.

2. Under Section 7(xi) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, if a suit is filed on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Court-fee is required to be paid according to the amount of the rent of the immovable property to which the suit refers, payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madak Chand Jain v. Ms. Fatima Bi, 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 46 = 1999 (2) JLJ 254, hasheld that in an eviction suit filed on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant on the ground of encroachment, i.e., 12 (1) (o) of the said Act, no separate Court fee is payable encroached area. The Court-fee paid on annual rental value is sufficient.

3. In this review of the matter, the Trial Court has acted illegally with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and hence it cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

4. The revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties Pradeep Kumar Badsar vs Jagganath Same Subject Civil Same Judge A.K. Shrivastava, J. Acts & Sections Court-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 7; Madhya Pradesh Accommodati...

Civil