Inherent jurisdiction ends after final disposal; court-fee follows alternative reliefs on the same cause of action.

Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to vary or reopen a decree after the original appeal has been finally disposed of; any challenge to the post-remand decree required a fresh, validly instituted appeal under the governing constitutional appellate provision, so the application was not entertainable for want of jurisdiction. On court-fee, a plaint seeking damages for wrongful dismissal or, alternatively, arrears of pay was treated as alternative reliefs on the same cause of action, not as two distinct causes of action. Court-fee was therefore to be assessed on the alternative-relief basis, with fixed fee on the declaratory relief and ad valorem fee on the higher alternative claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain a post-disposal application seeking variation of the decree of the Judicial Commissioner's Court in the absence of a fresh appeal under the constitutional provision governing appeals. (ii) Whether the plaint attracted court-fee as for two distinct causes of action or only as alternative reliefs on the same cause of action, with consequential effect on the fee payable.

Issue (i): Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain a post-disposal application seeking variation of the decree of the Judicial Commissioner's Court in the absence of a fresh appeal under the constitutional provision governing appeals.

Analysis: Once the earlier appeal had been finally disposed of, the Court held that its inherent powers could not be invoked unless it was properly seized of a fresh and validly instituted appeal. Any complaint about the decree passed after remand could be considered only through an independent appeal satisfying the requirements of the governing constitutional provision. In the absence of a certificate, the application could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint attracted court-fee as for two distinct causes of action or only as alternative reliefs on the same cause of action, with consequential effect on the fee payable.

Analysis: The plaint was read as claiming alternative reliefs on the same cause of action, namely damages for wrongful dismissal or, alternatively, arrears of pay on the footing that dismissal was ineffective. On that construction, the matter was not one of two distinct causes of action. The proper fee was therefore the fixed fee for the declaratory relief together with ad valorem fee on the higher alternative claim. The Court also indicated that the calculation adopted below appeared open to exception on that basis.

Conclusion: Court-fee was payable on the basis of alternative reliefs on the same cause of action, not as two distinct causes of action.

Final Conclusion: The application failed for want of jurisdiction, and the Court's observations clarified the correct basis on which court-fee should have been assessed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen or vary a decree after the original appeal has been finally disposed of, and where a plaint seeks alternative reliefs on the same cause of action, court-fee is to be computed on the appropriate alternative basis rather than as for separate causes of action.

---