Madan Lal and anr. Vs. Lajwanti Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........is that the value of the shops in dispute is much more that what has been determined by the trial judge and it is for this purpose that they have filed the present revision petition in this court. 3. the supreme court decision, referred to above, says:-- 'whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the state. the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the high court under section 115 of the code of civil procedure is strictly conditioned by cls.(a) to (c) thereof. the defendant who may believe and even honestly, that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint.' 4. in view of this authority, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. 5. petition dismissed.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. This revision petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299.

2. An objection was taken by the defendants-petitioners that proper court-fee had not been paid on the plaint. This matter was tried by the Subordinate Judge, who after appraising the evidence produced in the case, held that the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee for the relief of possession was Rupees. 10,000/- and not Rs.400/- as assessed by the plaintiff. The case of the defendants is that the value of the shops in dispute is much more that what has been determined by the trial Judge and it is for this purpose that they have filed the present revision petition in this Court.

3. The Supreme Court decision, referred to above, says:--

'Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. The jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by Cls.(a) to (c) thereof. The defendant who may believe and even honestly, that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint.'

4. In view of this authority, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.

5. Petition dismissed.