AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.—It is for the plaintiff to satisfy the court that his plaint has been properly valued and that proper court fee has been paid on it. When therefore the Court sees reason to issue a commission u/s 6 of the Travancore-Cochin Court-fees Act, 1125 (corresponding to Section 9 of the Court-fees Act, 1870), albeit on objection taken by the defendant, it seems to me obvious that the plaintiff must bear the cost of the commission in the first instance; and doubtless if the objection turns out to be ill-founded the court will direct re-imbursement by the defendant. I think the power to direct the plaintiff to deposit the cost of the commission necessarily inheres in the section and this is the view taken in Basanta Kumar v. Kali krishna 47 Cal WN 373 and in Thirupathaiah v. Mangapathi Rao AIR 1948 MLJ 345 . With the observation in Jolekha Bibi and Another Vs. Danis Mahommad and Others, at p. 68, that there is no power to require the plaintiff to deposit the costs of the commission unless it is ordered at his instance I am in respectful disagreement.
I dismiss the petition with costs.