AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is against the order passed by Sub Judge Handwara, where under, the learned Sub Judge after hearing the arguments and perusal
of the record has found that parties of suit have settled their account from time to time and defendant is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 3859/ to the
plaintiff and in these circumstances the plaintiff should have brought suit for specific amount which was outstanding and not a suit of account and
has treated the suit for specific amount of Rs. 3859/ and asked and called upon the plaintiff to deposit court fees accordingly, failing which
appropriate orders shall follow and it is this order which has been put to challenge.
From the perusal of the file of trial court, I do find that the person of plaintiff has admitted that they were having some fruit business with each
other and it was on 25th of May 1986 that amount ot Rs. 3859/ was found due to defendant and it was admitted by the defendents by affixing
signatures on settlement of account. So in that view of matter the finding arrived by the teamed court is not vague or perverse, which calls for
interference by the revisional court.
Revision is misconceived and finding of the court below is upheld. Let the case file go back to the Court below with the direction that the court
shall recover requisite court fees from the person of the plaintiff within specific time, failing which he shall make appropriate orders of non payment
of court fees.