Partly allowed

Sunkara Eswaramba v. Potluri Madhusudhana Rao [died]

Telangana HC25 Feb 2011CRP/5511/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition challenging a rejection order of an amended plaint for insufficiency of court fee. The court found no infirmity in the impugned orders but extended time for one month to pay the deficit fee. The petition was disposed of conditionally.

What did the court decide?

Time of one month extended for payment of deficit court fee; plaint to be received upon payment; revision dismissed in default.

Sunkara Eswaramba Vs Potluri Madhusudhana Rao [died] — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5511 OF 2010

¶3

Dated: 24.12.2010

¶4

Between: Sunkara Eswaramba. ..Petitioner And

¶5

Potluri Madhusudhana Rao and others.

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

This Court made the following

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY

¶9

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5511 OF 2010

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This is a revision directed against the docket order dated 29.9.2010 and the consequential order dated 7.10.2010 in O.S.No.49 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

¶12

The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit.

¶13

The plaintiff filed the suit initially for declaration that she is the legal and lawful owner of the schedule property and for delivery of possession of the same and for permanent injunction. Subsequently, she filed I.A No.705 of 2010 for amendment of the plaint for adding the reliefs viz., to set aside the sale deeds 17.6.1974 and gift deed dated 8.10.1973 and other necessary amendments in the plaint to that effect. The said application was allowed permitting the petitioner-plaintiff to add the reliefs as to the setting aside of the sale deeds and gift deed.

¶14

As per the amended copy of the plaint, the Court fee of Rs.18,578/- is to be paid under Section 29 of the APCF and SV Act, to the reliefs added by way of amendment. But a sum of Rs.10,158/was paid towards Court fee. Since the required Court fee has not been paid by the petitioner-plaintiff as mentioned in the amended plaint, the plaint is rejected by the Court below. Hence the revision.

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available

¶16

on record.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contended that as per the affidavit in I.A.No.705 of 2010, the three reliefs proposed to be added in the plaint are valued as per market value at Rs.1,26,750/-; Rs.1,26,750/- and Rs.62,500/- on which a Court fee is calculated at Rs.3,726/-, Rs.3,726/- and Rs.2,706/- and in total the Court fee to be paid is Rs.10,158/-, but, the office refused to receive the amended copy of the plaint on the ground of payment of deficit Court fee and production of valuation certificate and that the Court below erroneously passed the docket order that the amended plaint itself shows that the amount of Court fee to be paid is Rs.18,579/- and therefore, the orders of the Court below are liable to be set aside.

¶18

The amended copy of the plaint filed by the petitioner-plaintiff itself shows on the face of the record that the Court fee to be paid on the additional reliefs is Rs.18,578/- as per the market value as envisaged under Section 29 of the A.P. Court Fee Act. In this view of the matter, I feel that the orders impugned do not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court.

¶19

At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the time granted by the Court below has already expired and therefore, time may be granted to pay the deficit court fees.

¶20

In view of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, time for payment of deficit court fee is extended by one month, from today and on such payment, the Court below shall receive the plaint. In default of payment deficit court fee, the revision petition shall stand dismissed.

¶21

Accordingly, the CRP is disposed of. No order as to

¶22

costs.

¶23

_____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date: 24^th December, 2010 Nn.

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY

¶25

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5511 OF 2010

¶26

24.12.2010

Sunkara Eswaramba v. Potluri Madhusudhana Rao [died]

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunkara Eswaramba v. Potluri Madhusudhana Rao [died]

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

A.Gangaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

B. Gani Reddy Vs The District Collector

A. Narasavva Vs The Joint Collector

K.Sudheer Vs G.Hari Prasad

N. Naga Durga Satyanarayana ( died ) Vs Buddiraju Lakshmana Rao

Chenumola Varun Kumar Vs Chanumolu Vijaya Lakshmi