TMI Blog1969 (8) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a business in which the respondent was stated to be the manager and also for ejectment of the respondent from the premises in which the business was being carried on The same valuation was adopted for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. The valuation was divided into three parts: ₹ 4,000/- were taken as the valuation for rendition of accounts or arrears of rent, ₹ 130/- for injunction and ₹ 710/- for ejectment--Total ₹ 4,840/-. During the hearing of the suit and on objection by the defendant, the= valuation for ejectment was raised to ₹ 1,800/-. It appears that the appellant paid the additional court-fee but did not amend the plant. The suit was decreed in part on May 11, 1961. The appellant obtained a decr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pears that it was filed in the High Court the same day and, therefore, there was no loss of time after the return of the memorandum. The appeal was delayed by nearly one year. It may, however, be mentioned that the plaintiff (appellant) did not submit to the decision of the District Court but took the matter in revision before the High Court. The appeal as represented and the application for revision were disposed of by the common judgment under appeal before us. The High Court held that there was no ground for extending time under s. 5 of the Limitation Act for which purpose an application had been sub-joined to the appeal filed in the High Court. The question in this case is whether the High Court was fight in dealing with this prob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the District Court. When the appeal was filed, litigant had as much as two months 93 in hand to file the same in the High Court. Further he did not attempt to save court-fee on the appeal but paid the same courtfee which would have been payable in the High Court. It does not appear that he had an underhand motive for filing the appeal in the District Court. Therefore, the filing of the appeal must be attributed entirely to the advice of the counsel. Here again, the counsel did not suppress anything. As has been stated earlier, he put down both the valuations in the forefront of his memorandum of appeal, that is to say, the valuation of the suit in the original court and the valuation of the appeal. No doubt the counsel was one with som ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f that valuation can go. This rule does not apply where the amount decreed is below the valuation in the original court. Here the original valuation holds good both to find the forum and to put a valuation. After the amendment of the valuation on account of ejectment the total claim was ₹ 5,930/- and that determined the court of lowest denomination before which the appeal from the suit had to go. That according to the other rule which we have cited was the High Court. The second rule, which we have later cited, does not cut across the first rule. This appears to be the error which was committed by Mr. Raizada and we do not find anything in the case to show that this error was tainted by any mala-fide motive on the part of the counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
