Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.P.DOMINIC, S/O.PETER, AGED 66 YEARS versus N.D.JOSEPH, S/O.KUNJAMMA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.P.DOMINIC, S/O.PETER, AGED 66 YEARS v. N.D.JOSEPH, S/O.KUNJAMMA - WP(C) No. 33448 of 2006(F) [2007] RD-KL 570 (9 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33448 of 2006(F)

1. K.P.DOMINIC, S/O.PETER, AGED 66 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. N.D.JOSEPH, S/O.KUNJAMMA,
... Respondent

2. N.D.LEELA, W/O.ANTONY,

3. N.D.ANTONY, S/O.KUNJAMMA,

For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :09/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

W.P.(C)NO.33448 OF 2006

DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JANUARY, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.194/05 on the file of first Addl. Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Suit was filed for declaration. Learned Munsiff as per Ext.P3 order, while hearing the issue on the sufficiency of the Court fee paid, directed petitioner to pay batta for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is prepared to pay court fee, on the market value as provided under Section 25 of Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, after valuing the property as provided under Section 7 of the Court Fees and suit Valuation Act and there is no necessity to appoint a Commission. In the plaint, petitioner did not show the basis on which he valued the property. Instead plaint was valued at Rs.1,000/-. A suit for declaration is to be valued and Court fee is to be paid as provided under Section 25 of the Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. Market value of the property is to be determined as provided under W.P.(c)33448/06 2 Section 7 of the Act.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to file a statement valuing the property as provided under Section 7 as he is prepared to pay the court fee as provided under Section 25. In such circumstances, Ext.P3 order is quashed. Learned Munsiff is directed to permit petitioner to amend the plaint with regard to valuation. Munsiff to decide the question of correctness and sufficiency of payment of Court fee paid thereafter.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE

Acd W.P.(c)33448/06 3


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.