Kumaran Balakrishnan Vs. Sankaran Oommini - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Kerala High Court |
| Feb-24-1960 |
| C.R.P. No. 964 of 1959 |
| P.T. Raman Nayar, J. |
| AIR1961Ker129 |
| Court-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 9 |
| Kumaran Balakrishnan |
| Sankaran Oommini |
| N. Raghavan, Adv. |
| K.C. John, Adv. |
| Petition dismissed |
| Jalekha Bibi v. Danis Mahomed
|
- orderp.t. raman nayar, j.1. it is for the plaintiff to satisfy the court that his plaint has been properly valued and that proper court fee has been paid on it. when therefore the court sees reason to issue a commission under section 6 of the travancore-cochin court-fees act, 1125 (corresponding to section 9 of the court-fees act, 1870), albeit on objection taken by the defendant, it seems to me obvious that the plaintiff must bear the cost of the commission in the first instance; and doubtless if the objection turns out to be ill-founded the court will direct re-imbursement by the defendant. i think the power to direct the plaintiff to deposit the cost of the commission necessarily inheres in the section and this is the view taken in basanta kumar v. kali krishna, 47 cal wn 373 and in thirupathaiah v. mangapathi rao, air 1948 madras 345. with the observation in jalekha bibi v. danis mahomed, air 1930 cal 65 at p. 68, that there is no power to require the plaintiff to deposit the costs of the commission unless it is ordered at his instance i am in respectful disagreement.2. i dismiss the petition with costs.
ORDER
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.
1. It is for the plaintiff to satisfy the court that his plaint has been properly valued and that proper court fee has been paid on it. When therefore the Court sees reason to issue a commission under Section 6 of the Travancore-Cochin Court-fees Act, 1125 (corresponding to Section 9 of the Court-fees Act, 1870), albeit on objection taken by the defendant, it seems to me obvious that the plaintiff must bear the cost of the commission in the first instance; and doubtless if the objection turns out to be ill-founded the court will direct re-imbursement by the defendant. I think the power to direct the plaintiff to deposit the cost of the commission necessarily inheres in the section and this is the view taken in Basanta Kumar v. Kali krishna, 47 Cal WN 373 and in Thirupathaiah v. Mangapathi Rao, AIR 1948 Madras 345. With the observation in Jalekha Bibi v. Danis Mahomed, AIR 1930 Cal 65 at p. 68, that there is no power to require the plaintiff to deposit the costs of the commission unless it is ordered at his instance I am in respectful disagreement.
2. I dismiss the petition with costs.