Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ujagar Singh v. Ved Prakash And Others - WRIT - C No. 30360 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10536 (26 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In pursuance to an order of revisional court deciding preliminary issue No. 3 on the payment of valuation of the suit and the payment of court fee, the respondents-plaintiffs had to take steps for payment of court fee. A specific direction in that regard was also given by the trial court to pay the deficient court fee by a particular date. For noncompliance of that order, the trial court passed order dated 2.2.1987 (Annexure-2) rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (b) and (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The respondents-plaintiffs, thereafter, moved the trial court under Section 151 C.P.C. for recalling that order through an application (Annexure-6). The trial court rejected that application against which a revision was preferred, being Civil Revision No. 416 of 1987. It has been allowed by the court below by the impugned order (Annexure-3).

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. is a decree of the court and no application invoking inherent jurisdiction of the court under Section 151 C.P.C. can be moved for recall of such ordfer by either of the parties. If the petitioner had moved such  an application, that should not have been reasonably allowed under law and if the revisional court has allowed such application, the order is wholly erroneous. Such order passed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. if come within the definition of decree passed by the court, the only remedy available against it, is an appeal under Section 96 C.P.C.

Issue notice to the respondents No. 1 to 8 returnable within six weeks.

List thereafter on the date fixed in the notice.

Meanwhile, the proceedings in original Suit No. 189 of 1974 and the operation of the order of the revisional court dated 6.5.2006 (Annexure-3) shall remain suspended.




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


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 |

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