Declaration suit and for injunction = whether court fee has to be paid for injunction - no as it is consequential relief ..................... (c) directing the respondents 3 and 4 to restore the service connection by way of mandatory injunction;= Suits for declaration are dealt with by Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. It deals with suits for declaration with or without consequential reliefs not falling under Section 25 of the said Act. We are not concerned with Section 25 because this is not a suit falling under that Section. Clause (a) of Section 24 of the said Act deals with "suits where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates"; Clause (b) deals with "suits where the prayer is for declaration and for a consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property" Clause (c) deals with "suits where the prayer relates to the plaintiff's exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right"; and Clause (d) deals with all other cases "where the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or note"; and it provides that fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. None of the Clauses contemplate payment of separate court-fee for a consequential relief. The present suit falls under Clause (d) of Section 24, and the petitioner has paid the court-fee on the entire amount in respect of which a declaration has been sought.= In the circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was in error in directing the petitioner to pay court-fee on Rs. 24,000/- for the consequential relief of mandatory injunction and the Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed, and the direction of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside.-2015 A.P.( 1993) MSKLAWREPORTS



Declaration suit and for injunction = whether court fee has to be paid for injunction - no as it is consequential relief ..................... (c) directing the respondents 3 and 4 to restore the service connection by way of mandatory injunction;= Suits for declaration are dealt with by Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. It deals with suits for declaration with or without consequential reliefs not falling under Section 25 of the said Act. We are not concerned with Section 25 because this is not a suit falling under that Section. Clause (a) of Section 24 of the said Act deals with "suits where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates"; Clause (b) deals with "suits where the prayer is for declaration and for a consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property" Clause (c) deals with "suits where the prayer relates to the plaintiff's exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right"; and Clause (d) deals with all other cases "where the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or note"; and it provides that fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. None of the Clauses contemplate payment of separate court-fee for a consequential relief. The present suit falls under Clause (d) of Section 24, and the petitioner has paid the court-fee on the entire amount in respect of which a declaration has been sought.= In the circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was in error in directing the petitioner to pay court-fee on Rs. 24,000/- for the consequential relief of mandatory injunction and the Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed, and the direction of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside.-2015 A.P.( 1993) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS