Dismissed

Amar Dass Dang v. a K Mehta and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Mar 2013CR/1561/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against the dismissal of an application for rejection of a plaint on grounds of improper valuation and non-disclosure of cause of action, the High Court dismissed the revision. The Court held it will not examine the plea of limitation suo motu when the suit is not barred at the revision stage and the trial court has unlimited jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of the application for rejection of plaint is dismissed. No specific order on plea of limitation.

Amar Dass Dang Vs a K Mehta and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR No. 1561 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 1561 of 2013 Date of decision March 13 , 2013

¶5

Amar Dass Dang s/o Sh. Thana Ram Dang

¶6

....... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

A. K. Mehta s/o late Sh. B. S. Mehta and others

¶9

........ Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶14

The revision is against the dismissal of an application for rejection of a plaint on the ground that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee insofar as it contains a prayer for damages of `40 lacs and that further the suit does not discloseany cause of action. The Court was dealing with the issue of valuation by pointing out that the Court will have the power to collect the Court fee at the time of assessment of damages and the plaint cannot fail for non-payment of court fee at the present. Payment of Court fee is essentially a matter between the Court and the suitor and it shall not normally be a ground for intervention in revision unless it bristles with issues of pecuniary jurisdiction itself. It is admitted by the counsel that the Court of first instance is a Court of unlimited jurisdiction and that the institution before the said Court cannot suffer for want of jurisdiction. In such an event if the Court

¶15

CR No. 1561 of 2013 2

¶16

observes that it will reserve its right to collect appropriate Court fee and on a specific adjudication it does not suffer from any legal vice for an intervention in revision. Learned counsel has an objection that the suit is barred by limitation. I sought the counsel assistance if there is any specific plea regarding the objection of the maintainability on the ground of limitation. Section 3 of the Limitation Act allows for taking up consideration even without a plea. I am not prepared to examine it at the threshold for rejection if it is brought before me. He shall be competent to take up the plea before the trial Court and seek for an appropriate adjudication thereon.

¶17

The civil revision is dismissed.

¶18

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶19

March 13, 2013 archana

Amar Dass Dang v. a K Mehta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Dass Dang v. a K Mehta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Bindal and Ors. Vs Santan Dharam Mahila Mahavidhlaya Society Its President and Ors.

Kamla Soni Vs Mohinder Singh & Anr.

(O&M) Ajmer Singh Vs Surjit Singh

Som Dutt Sharma Vs Dharam Chand Mittal

(O&M) Pushpa Rani and Anr. Vs Pritam Singh and Anr.

M/S Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers Vs Harjit Kau and Anr.