The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for affixing proper court fee. The single-judge bench held that no ground for interference existed as the suit was midway and court fees can be affixed at the final stage.
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.
CR No.4469 of 2016 (O&M)
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.4469 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:05.08.2016
Baljit Singh and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
Murti Shri Vishnu Avtar Baba Ram Dev and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. H.P.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioners.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
The petitioner-defendants are aggrieved of the impugned order, whereby, an application filed by them for directing the respondent/plaintiffs for affixing proper Court fee, has been dismissed.
Mr. H.P.S.Ghuman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendants submits that it is borne out that previously an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed on similar ground and the same was dismissed, vide order dated 23.07.2015 on the ground that it was a temple. However, during the cross examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses, it has surfaced that plaintiffs have no proof of the ownership of the property in dispute.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants and appraised the paper book and of the view that suit is almost in midway. The Court fees can always be affixed, in case of objection has been taken in the
Savita 2016.08.12 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CR No.4469 of 2016 (O&M)
{2}
written statement, at the final stage.
With the aforementioned observations, no ground is made out
for interference in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 05, 2016 savita Wheather speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Savita 2016.08.12 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the dismissal of an application for affixing proper court fee when the suit is midway.
Whether lack of proof of ownership by plaintiffs is sufficient ground for interference in the impugned order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baljit Singh and others
Murti Shri Vishnu Avtar Baba Ram Dev
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
