Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.26 seconds)Section 11 in Andhra Pradesh Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951
Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972
C.Venkata Swamy vs H.N. Shivanna (D) By Lr. Etc. on 4 December, 2017
16. Section 21(2) CPC which deals with pecuniary
jurisdiction. Here, no doubt in the written statement itself
an objection to the value of plaint was taken of the same as
under valued and had it been properly valued the Junior
Civil Judge has no pecuniary jurisdiction. The valuation for
the purpose of Court fee to be arrived first and that is to be
adopted for the purpose of jurisdiction as held by the Full
Bench of this Court in Kalla Yadagiri v. Kotha Bal Reddy ,
the same was quoted with approval in Syed Nazinnunnisa
v. Syed Azmathullah observed of the value for the purpose
of Court fee must first be arrived for all purposes be
adopted as value for the purpose of jurisdiction with no
other alternative; in view of the Full Bench expression of
the Apex Court in C.Venkata Swamy v. H.N.Shivana (died)
by legal representatives observed that once the Court fee
paid by the plaintiff, the value arrived for the Court fee is
the value for jurisdiction. So far as the Court fee is
concerned, it is between the Court and the plaintiff and not
between the plaintiff and defendant, though the defendant
can raise a plea and bring any material to assist the Court.
Further, as per Section 11 of the A.P. Court Fees & Suits
Valuation Act, 1956, in every suit the Court shall before
ordering the plaint to be registered, decide on the
allegations contained in the plaint and the material
furnished by the plaintiff the proper Court fee payable
thereon. The decision of the Court shall be no doubt
subject to review from time-to-time as and when occasion
requires, so to revise including for any inspecting Court
invoking Section 16 of the A.P. Court Fees & Suits Valuation
Act, 1956 for the Inspecting Court to give directions to
guide for re-determination, if any, though mere check slip
of the Inspecting Court is not binding in such determination,
but for a rehearing of the plaintiff and application of the
judicial mind for re-determination, if any, leave about such
power even available to the appellate Court including with
reference to the Sections 12 to 15 of the A.P. Court Fees &
Suits Valuation Act, 1956.
Kumarika Subarna Rekha Mani Devi And ... vs Ramakrishna Deo And Ors. on 1 December, 1966
As held by the Full Bench of this Court in Sri
Maharaj Kumarika Subarna Rekha Mani Devi v
Ramakrishna Deo the Court further found any Court fee is
deposited or any valuation not properly made returned the
plaint by asking the plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fee,
and it is only when such direction is given and not complied
as contemplated by Order VII Rule 11 clauses 2 & 3 CPC the
Court can reject the plaint.
Velagala Sriramareddi And Ors. vs Karri Sriramareddi, Being Minor By ... on 16 September, 1941
Thereby and also from the Full
Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Velagala
Sriramareddi v. Karri Sriramareddi, being minor by
certificated guardian, G.Bhima Rao that was quoted with
approval in G.C.Kumar v. Ashok Kumar the same is not
final but tentative and if at all in course of enquiry or trial
it finds any deficiency of Court fee, for so ordering to be
paid including while pronouncing judgment.
Shri G.C. Kumar And Others vs Shri Ashok Kumar And Others on 11 April, 2001
Thereby and also from the Full
Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Velagala
Sriramareddi v. Karri Sriramareddi, being minor by
certificated guardian, G.Bhima Rao that was quoted with
approval in G.C.Kumar v. Ashok Kumar the same is not
final but tentative and if at all in course of enquiry or trial
it finds any deficiency of Court fee, for so ordering to be
paid including while pronouncing judgment.