JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) The present review petition
has been filed against the order passed by
this Court in C.R. No. 5844 of 1999.
(2.) The petitioner herein had moved an
application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.
for rejection of the plaint for not affixing the
proper Court-fee. On the pleadings of the
parties, one of the issues framed was
"Whether the suit is under valued for the
purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction."
(3.) When thee case was fixed for evidence,
the application was moved by the petitioner
under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
The said application was dismissed by the trial Court
by holding that as the issue had been framed
regarding Court fee the same would be decided
along with the other issues on the
basis of evidence led by the parties.
The revision petition was also dismissed by holding
that there was no error of jurisdiction in
the impugned order which would call for
interference by this Court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. Mr. Arun Palli,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of ITC Limited v.
Debts Recovery Tribunal and others, 1998
(2) Supreme Court Cases 70 : AIR 1998 SC
634, Civil Appeal No. 8864 of 1997 decided
on 19-12-1997 argued that the impugned
order is liable to be reviewed as the basis
for passing of the said order is, that no petition under
Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. was competent after
the issues had been framed and
the said view cannot be sustained in view of
the judgment in the case of I.T.C. Limited (supra).;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.