P.N. Bhatt Vs. Kaushalya Devi

P.N. Bhatt vs Kaushalya Devi

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 25, 1982

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/684408

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/684408
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Sultan Singh, J.
Decided On: Feb 25, 1982
Case Number: Civil Revision Appeal No. 611 of 1980
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

Court Fee Act, 1870 - Schedule I Article 7 ; Order of the Controller ordering eviction of the tenant is not an order having the force of a decree within the meaning of Article 7 in Schedule I of the Court Fee Act. -

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Court Fees Act, 1870

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.N. Bhatt

Advocate V.K. Jain and; Ram Patnalik, Advs

Respondent

Kaushalya Devi

Legal References

Acts: Court Fees Act, 1870
Cases Referred: Sultan Singh Jain v. Jai Chand
Reported In: 21(1982)DLT295; 1982(3)DRJ200; 1982RLR294

Excerpt

court fee act, 1870 - schedule i article 7 ; order of the controller ordering eviction of the tenant is not an order having the force of a decree within the meaning of article 7 in schedule i of the court fee act. - .....revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the certified copy of the impugned order passed by the controller was not sufficiently stamped under article 7 in 'schedule l.of the court fees act, 1870. h6 submits that the impugned order is an order having the force of a decree and thereforee court fee of rs. 2.65 ought to have been affixed on the copy. article 6 in schedule i requires the payment of court fees at rs. 1.25 paisc on the copy of the judgment or ordr not having the force of a decree. the question for decision is whether the impugned order is an order having the force of a decree. section 42 of the act provides that an order made by the controller shall be executable by the controller as a decree of a civil court, and the controller shall have the powers of the civil court, la other words, it is not an order having the force of a decree but it is executable as a decree of the civil court by the controller. in sohan lal lamba v. sarvshri s l kapoor and a.l. kapoor, 1969 r.c.r 174 this court held that order of the controller was a decree of civil court only for the purpose of execution of the same and that it was not regarded as decree for all purposes. an identical objection was raised in sultan singh jain v. jai chand ana another, 1965 (2) pun 677 and it was held that article 7 in schedule 1 of the court fees act was not attracted as the order of the rent controller, was not an order having the force of a decree though executable as a decree of a civil court. i, thereforee, hold that the order of eviction passed by the controller is not an order having the force of a decree within the meaning of article 7 in schedule i of the court fees act. it is thereforee held that proper court fee was affixed by the petitioner on the certified copy of the impugned order. (2) the impugned order of the controller is not according to law. i thereforee, accept this revision petition and set aside the impugned order. the eviction petition filed by the.....

Full Judgment

Sultan Singh, J.

(1) Learned counsel for the respondent next submits that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the certified copy of the impugned order passed by the Controller was not sufficiently stamped under Article 7 in 'Schedule l.of the Court Fees Act, 1870. H6 submits that the impugned order is an order having the force of a decree and thereforee court fee of Rs. 2.65 ought to have been affixed on the copy. Article 6 in Schedule I requires the payment of court fees at Rs. 1.25 paisc on the copy of the judgment or ordr not having the force of a decree. The question for decision is whether the impugned order is an order having the force of a decree. Section 42 of the Act provides that an order made by the Controller shall be executable by the Controller as a decree of a civil court, and the Controller shall have the powers of the civil court, la other words, it is not an order having the force of a decree but it is executable as a decree of the civil court by the Controller. In Sohan Lal Lamba v. Sarvshri S L Kapoor and A.L. Kapoor, 1969 R.C.R 174 this court held that order of the Controller was a decree of civil court only for the purpose of execution of the same and that it was not regarded as decree for all purposes. An identical objection was raised in Sultan Singh Jain v. Jai Chand ana another, 1965 (2) Pun 677 and it was held that Article 7 in Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act was not attracted as the order of the Rent Controller, was not an order having the force of a decree though executable as a decree of a civil court. I, thereforee, hold that the order of eviction passed by the Controller is not an order having the force of a decree within the meaning of Article 7 in Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. It is thereforee held that proper court fee was affixed by the petitioner on the certified copy of the impugned order.

(2) The impugned order of the Controller is not according to law. I thereforee, accept this revision petition and set aside the impugned order. The eviction petition filed by the landlady against the petitioner-tenant is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 200.00 .

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1982 Same Parties P.N. Bhatt vs Kaushalya Devi Same Subject Civil Same Judge Sultan Singh, J. Acts & Sections Court Fees Act, 1870

Civil