1935 (11) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... request and on a consideration of the matter decided that the court-fee paid was sufficient. Against that order the defendant has moved this Court. The matter first came before a single Judge who referred it to a Division Bench on account of the lack of uniformity in rulings of the Court in regard to interference in revision in court-fee matters. In so far as orders in favour of the plaintiff are concerned there appeals to be consensus of opinion of all the Courts that such an order is not revisable: [see Kanhaya Lal v. Baldeo Lal 1925 Pat 708, Muhammad Elliyas v. Rahima Bee 1929 Mad 191, Kattiya Pillai v. Ramasamy Pillai. 1929 Mad 396, Balkrishna v. Ramkishun 1929 All 957, G.M. Falkner v. Mirza Mahomed Syed Ali 1925 Cal 814 and Secy. of S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case there is another remedy open to the plaintiff by way of appeal if his plaint is rejected for non-compliance with the order. With regard to this case, the learned Chief Justice in Ram Bhusan Das v. Bachu Rai 1934 Pat 641 said: The report of that case gives no indication in itself as to the class of the decision which was given by the lower Court. One may infer however from the facts, that the learned Judges decided that revision did not lie and that the matter was really one of quantum and not of category. To my mind this case gives us no guidance in the matter. It is quite consistent with the Court having held that if it had been a case of the category under the section into which the suit fell, they might have been inclined to revi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal court-fee, and that decision is not explainable on the lines suggested by the learned Chief Justice in Ram Bhusan Das v. Bachu Rai 1934 Pat 641. Our attention has been called to no case in which any High Court has interfered in revision with an order in favour of plaintiff resulting in his suit being permitted to proceed on the court-fee which he himself elected to pay. The general practice, not only in this High Court but in the other High Courts, is not to interfere with interlocutory orders unless in exceptional circumstances when such order may result in irreparable injury to one or other of the litigant parties. An order permitting a suit to proceed does not injure any party. When a suit is allowed to proceed on an insufficient cou....