Dismissed

Smt. Kanwari Bai Alias Ramkanwari D/O Shri Mangilal v. Udailal S/O Shri Mangilal

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2019CW/3297/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition challenging an order quashing a suit instituted without court fees. The court held the impugned order under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 38 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, was not illegal and denied interference under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is dismissed. The petitioner is given liberty to comply with the impugned order within a fortnight.

Smt. Kanwari Bai Alias Ramkanwari D/O Shri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 3297/2019

¶3

Smt. Kanwari Bai Alias Ramkanwari D/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 65 Years, W/o Shri Ramdev, By Caste Meghwal , R/o Village Samarba, Presently Residing At Village Onkarpura, Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Udailal S/o Shri Mangilal, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Samarba, Presently Residing At Rajatgrah, Opp. Gate No. 6, Marwaro Ka Mohalla, Indra Colony, Bundi, Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj.)

¶7

Sub-Registrar, Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶8

State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner present in person. For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

13/02/2019

¶14

Petitioner is aggrieved of the order made by the Court below dated 3^rd January, 2019, on an application that was instituted by the respondent-defendant(s) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for the required court fee was not paid on the suit instituted, in accordance with The Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act of 1961’).

¶15

Petitioner present in person, but for the court fee that if computed as per provisions of the Act of 1961, would be exorbitant and she is a poor person; no other point was raised for consideration of this Court.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-3297/2019]

¶18

Heard and considered.

¶19

A glance of impugned order dated 3^rd January, 2019, would reflect that the application was instituted by the respondentdefendant(s) at the stage when the entire evidence was concluded and the matter was fixed for final hearing. However, the contents of the application turned out to be of substance and correct for the suit was not accompanied with the required court fees as contemplated under Section 38 of the Act of 1961, which reads

¶20

thus:

¶21

“38. Suits for cancellation of decrees, etc:-

¶22

(1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be,--

¶23

(a) if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed; and

¶24

(b) if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property.

¶25

(2) If the decree or other document is such that the liability under it cannot be split up and the relief claimed relates only to a particular item of property belonging to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's share in any such property, fee shall be computed on the value of such property or share or on the amount of the decree, whichever is less.

¶26

Explanation.-- A suit to set aside an award shall be deemed to be a suit to set aside a decree within the meaning of this section.”

¶27

The Court below while granting the application of the respondent-defendant(s) imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees

¶28

(3 of 3) [CW-3297/2019]

¶29

Five Thousand only/-), while directing the petitioner, reserving liberty to her to submit amended suit along with the required court fee in accordance with the Act of 1961, with a copy in advance to the respondent-defendant(s).

¶30

In the singular factual matrix of the case at hand and upon hearing the petitioner in person so also for the reasons recorded by the Court below while accepting the prayer of the respondentdefendant(s) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with the provisions of the Act of 1961; the impugned order dated 3^rd January, 2019, suffers with no illegality much less material illegality so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

In the result, writ application fails, and is, hereby dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to ensure compliance of the impugned order, within a fortnight form today.

¶32

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶33

M.Meena/88

Smt. Kanwari Bai Alias Ramkanwari D/O Shri Mangilal v. Udailal S/O Shri Mangilal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kanwari Bai Alias Ramkanwari D/O Shri Mangilal v. Udailal S/O Shri Mangilal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Medical Trust Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Andan

Rewachand Manglani S/O Shri Sundar Lal Vs State Bank of India through Managing Director

Narendra Singh S/O Shri Mahidhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Marwari Khatri Panchayat Ajmer Vs Hemant Kumar @ J. Hemant Kumar Mehta S/O Shri Jawatmal Mehta

Shri Marwari Khatri Panchayat Vs Shri Munshi Ram Bhatnagar S/O Late Shri Partma Swaroop @ Narayan Swaroop Bhatnagar

Smt. Kanwari Bai Alias Ramkanwari D/O Shri Mangilal Vs Udailal S/O Shri Mangilal