Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.48 seconds)
Ram Pershad, Minor, Represented By His ... vs Dhapi on 2 July, 1887 cites

Omrao Mirza vs M. Jones on 26 March, 1884

In the case of Omrao Mirza v. Jones 12 C.L.R. 148, one of the cases cited by O'Kinealy, J,, the facts were these. The plaintiff brought a suit, alleging divers breaches of trust, asking for an account and for the appointment of a new trustee. The value of the trust property was five lacs of rupees. The suit was instituted on a 10-rupee Court-fee stamp as being the proper stamp under Article 17, Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. The Court in which the suit was instituted was of opinion that the Court-fee ought to have been calculated on the full value of the trust property, and made an order that the deficiency, Rs. 2,990, should be made good within a certain time. Before the time expired the plaintiff applied for a rule to show cause why the order should not be set aside. In showing cause against the rule it was argued that, if the plaintiff had waited until the expiration of the time allowed for making good the deficiency, the Court of first instance must have proceeded to deal with the case under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that the order rejecting the plaint which would have been made in due course under that section, on the ground that the relief was not properly valued, would have been an appealable order ; and this being so, it was further contended that the applicant ought not to be allowed to come in under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, when he could by law have an appeal in the case upon the very point he sought to raise under the rule. McDonell and Field, JJ., yielded to this argument; and holding that the case was not, with reference to the language of Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code "a case in which no appeal lies to the High Court, " and that the matter under dispute ought to be determined on appeal, discharged the rule.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1