Bharat Aluminum Company Limited Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, (C.G.) (A Company Registered Under Companies Act), Through The Chief Executive Officer, Balco Through General Power Of Attorney-Avatar Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh, Aged About 41 Years, General Manager, Bharat Aluminum Company Limited, Balconagar, Korba District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

(Cause title is taken from Court Information System)

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Marhas, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

(Order on Board)

¶14

01.09.2023

¶15

The defendant/applicant herein has preferred this revision being aggrieved by impugned order dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed in Civil Suit No.11-A/2020 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Korba (C.G.), whereby application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

¶16

Heard on question of maintainability of the revision.

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent raised objection with regard to maintainability of the revision as the the application under Order 7 Rule 11 has been moved by the defendants on the ground of valuation of the suit and if it decided, it would not finally conclude the proceeding. There would be time granted for payment of the deficit court fee, therefore, a revision would not be maintainable. He further submits that the objection of defendant which has been decided is not amenable to be considered in a case of revision because if it would have been considered, the time would have been granted and it would not finally terminate the proceeding, therefore, there is bar under the revision, and the same is not maintainable. In support of his submission, learned Sr. counsel placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Golden Tringle Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rajkumari, Sidhi Kumari and others reported in 2002 SCC OnLine Raj 164, wherein in para 7 it has been held that - “the Hon’ble Supreme Court further approved the judgment Kerala High Court in Vasu V. Chakki Mani (AIR 1934 All 620), wherein it was pointed out that no revision would lie against the decision on the question of adequacy of court fee at the instance of the defendant unless the question of Court fee involves also the question of jurisdiction of the Court”. Further, in para 8, it has been held that - “Thus, in view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, the earlier judgments of various High Courts that

¶19

¶20

revision may be maintainable by the defendant, cannot be held to

¶21

have any persuasive force.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the revision with liberty to applicant to file appropriate application before the appropriate forum.

¶23

Permission granted.

¶24

Accordingly, the civil revision is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to file appropriate application before the appropriate forum.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶27

pkd

Kailash Nath Seth v. Bharat Aluminum Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Kailash Nath Seth v. Bharat Aluminum Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Das Vs Vishnu and Ors.

Praveen Katela Vs Smt. Kamla Devi and Oth.

Mohammad Narula Raj Vs Bansal Brothers

Rajkishor Mishra Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Pooja Chandrakar Vs Avinash Dilliwar

Sheikh Tasavvar Vs State of Chhattisgarh