SARDAR TAJENDER SINGH GHAMBHIR Vs. SARDAR GURPREET SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-71
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: UTTARAKHAND)
Decided on
September 12,2014
Sardar Tajender Singh Ghambhir
Appellant
VERSUS
Sardar Gurpreet Singh
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SMTI MITRA ROY & ORS. VS. JAGDISH CHANDRA RAI & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-3-145] [REFERRED TO]SHYAMALI DUTTA VS. SATTYA SANDIP DUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-2022-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
RANI DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
M REHAN & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-309] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR PANDEY VS. SHIVKALI AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I VS. M/S RASHTRADOOT (HUF) [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-10-133] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. AMIT PARASHAR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
UMA DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-2-250] [REFERRED TO]
PREM PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA VS. DEVENDRA KUMAR NAYAK [LAWS(CHH)-2021-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
KANCO ENTERPRISES LIMITED VS. AUTHORISED OFFICER OF STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2015-5-67] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJLAL BIYANI VIDYA NIKETAN SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ORS. VS. BHARTI AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-390] [REFERRED TO]
KORE RAJU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-429] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HARKESH & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
BIJENDRA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
MD JALAL UDDIN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2019-6-74] [REFERRED TO]
PARWATI, WIDOW OF BAISHAKHU VS. SHRIDHAR, S/O BADRINATH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
MARIUM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
HEMLATA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
SOMVATI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-127] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. POONAM SATISHKUMAR LALCHANDANI - WIFE OF DECEASED [LAWS(GJH)-2018-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The Appellants are Plaintiffs in the suit for declaration and injunction. It is not in dispute that adequate court fee in that regard was paid by the Plaintiffs. Later on, reliefs were amended and prayers for compensation and utilization were also made. However, on the amended valuation, there was deficiency in payment of court-fee but to make up such deficiency, no order was passed by the trial court.
(3.)The present Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (Defendants in the suit) preferred first appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun. In the first appeal, an objection regarding deficit court-fee was raised by the Defendants. The first appellate court, however, observed that while granting amendment in the plaint, the trial court did not prescribe any time limit in connection with the payment of court-fee and even no objection was raised by the Defendants in that regard. The aspect of deficit court-fee came to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs at the time of preparation of decree only and, therefore, an opportunity deserved to be granted to the Plaintiffs to make up the deficit court-fee in the interest of justice.
(2.)The Appellants are Plaintiffs in the suit for declaration and injunction. It is not in dispute that adequate court fee in that regard was paid by the Plaintiffs. Later on, reliefs were amended and prayers for compensation and utilization were also made. However, on the amended valuation, there was deficiency in payment of court-fee but to make up such deficiency, no order was passed by the trial court.
(3.)The present Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (Defendants in the suit) preferred first appeal which was heard by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun. In the first appeal, an objection regarding deficit court-fee was raised by the Defendants. The first appellate court, however, observed that while granting amendment in the plaint, the trial court did not prescribe any time limit in connection with the payment of court-fee and even no objection was raised by the Defendants in that regard. The aspect of deficit court-fee came to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs at the time of preparation of decree only and, therefore, an opportunity deserved to be granted to the Plaintiffs to make up the deficit court-fee in the interest of justice.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.