Petition under Article 227 challenged orders directing ad valorem Court fee on a mandatory injunction relief claiming possession of property after alleged dispossession. The High Court held the fixed fee for injunction did not apply to possession claims and dismissed the petition at admission stage, delay also being inadequately explained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25930
Court No. - 8
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1529 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt. Renu Mishra Respondent :- Goldi Pandey And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.Mohd Kazim,Pramod Kumar,Syed Jamal Ahmad
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
2
property in question was valued at Rs.5.00 lakhs. A relief was incorporated seeking a decree in the nature of mandatory injunction commanding the defendants to hand over the peaceful possession of the ground floor portion to the plaintiff and a declaration of title on the basis of a Will dated 15.02.2021 was also sought. Though the said amendment was allowed, however, an objection was raised regarding valuation and payment of Court fee in terms whereof the trial Court by means of the order dated 16.01.2016 overruled the objection raised by the plaintiff and required the plaintiff to amend the plaint as well as to pay necessary Court Fee as determined by the Munsarim inasmuch as it was found that by virtue of mandatory injunction, the petitioner was claiming the possession of the property in question upon which ad valorem Court fee was liable to be paid. This order of the trial Court dated 16.01.2016 was assailed by the petitioner by filing a Misc. Appeal which also by means the order dated 13.10.2018 has been dismissed.
3
4
injunction, hence, the same may be made applicable in the instant case also.
Order Date :- 28.03.2024 Rakesh/-
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a plaintiff seeking possession through mandatory injunction can pay fixed maximum Court fee under Section 7(iv)(a) instead of ad valorem Court fee.
Whether the decision in Ajab Singh applied to suits between licensor and licensee extends to a suit alleging illegal dispossession.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shailendra Bhardwaj and others v. Chandra Pal and AnotherRelied on
Shailendra Bhardwaj and others v. Chandra Pal and Another, 2013 (1) ARC 319
Ajab Singh v. Shital Puri (deceased by LRs)Distinguished¶13
Ajab Singh v. Shital Puri (deceased by LRs), 1993 SCC OnLine All 26 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Renu Mishra
Goldi Pandey And Others
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
