Dismissed

Avis Car Hire (P) Ltd. v. Praveen and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2010CR/1056/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a common reference application and the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, upholding the impugned order dismissing the suit as there was no infirmity. The Court held that objections to court fee valuation and power of attorney should be raised during proceedings, not at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11.

What the court decided

AI extract

Avis Car Hire (P) Ltd. Vs Praveen… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.R.No.1056 of 2010 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision : 18.2.2010

¶4

Avis Car Hire (P) Ltd.

....Petitioner

Versus

Praveen and others

...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶12

C.M.Nos.4016 & 4017-CII of 2010

¶13

Allowed as prayed for.

¶14

C.R.No.1056 of 2010

¶15

The application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been declined by virtue of the impugned order.

¶16

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity therein. The respondents on an earlier occasion had been asked to affix the court fee on a similar application which was moved by the petitioner and pursuant to the orders passed in that application the respondents had affixed the court fee. Now once again an objection has been taken stating that the subject-matter of the suit property has been undervalued for the purpose of affixation of court

¶17

C.R.No.1056 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶18

fee. It is reflected from the order that the court fee which has been affixed is on the value as reflected in the sale deed. Consequently, the objection of the petitioner is meaningless. In any eventuality, whether the court fee has been rightly affixed or not, the objection can be taken by the petitioner during the course of proceedings. But, prima facie once the adequate court fee has been affixed, the suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold while exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. That apart, the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the general power of attorney has not been challenged by the respondents and therefore the suit is not maintainable, is also without any merit. If so advised, the petitioner may take up this objection during the course of proceedings but the suit under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be dismissed on such an objection.

¶19

No ground to interfere.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

18.2.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss

Avis Car Hire (P) Ltd. v. Praveen and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Avis Car Hire (P) Ltd. v. Praveen and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avtar Singh Vs Jit Singh and Anr.

Bir Bhan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Birmati and Ors. Vs Angoori

Ram Kanwar & Ors. Vs Satya Kishan & Ors.

Puran Singh Vs Kesho Ram Bhalla

Gurcharan Singh Vs Gurbachan Singh