D. K. Kapnr, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has had an interesting history. It was filed as a Civil Revision on 7th July, 1973. It came before a learned Single Judge for admission. The learned Single Judge noted that as the plaint had been rejected, a Revision was not maintainable, so the petitioner may move an application.

( 2 ) THE petitioner then filed C. M. No. 1428/73, praying that the Revision be treated as an F. A. O. This application was allowed by the learned Single Judge, who directed the office to take the necessary steps. Civil Revision No. 464/73 was then converted into F. A. O. No. 1/74, which was admitted by a Division Bench on 15th January, 1974, and it was noted that the maintainability of the appeal would be considered at the hearing.

( 3 ) F. A. O. 1/74 was listed for hearing before another learned Single Judge, who directed the same to be listed on 19th August, 1985. Then CM No. 2492/85 was moved by the appellant-applicant to convert the F. AO. into an R. F A. An order passed by the learned Single Judge on 26th August, 1985. shows that the contention of the counsel for the respondent was that the appeal was competent only as an R. F. A. , and full court-fees has to be affixed on the appeal.

( 4 ) IN any event, it was directed that the appeal should be listed before a Division Bench. The Division Bench then directed that the appeal should be listed as a Regular First Appeal, but as the order was an extremely short one, no paper-book need be prepared. This is how the appeal came tobe listed before us.

( 5 ) NOW, it is necessary to reproduce the order which is under appeal. It is as follows :- "present Sh. H. L. Sehgal in person. Deficiency in court fee has

NOT been made up. Sh. H. L. Sehgal states that he wishes to move for transfer of this suit but that is no ground for granting him further time. Since court fee has not been paid, I reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule II, Civil Procedure Code. Announced sd/- P. L. Singia, 16-2-1973. Addl. Diltrict Judge, Delhi". Thus, the plaint was rejected on failure to make up the deficiency in the court-fees.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, it is necessary to note some other facts in connection with the Suit before the Additional District Judge. The Suit was filed along with an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for time in paying the deficit court-fees. The plaint was written on a stamp paper bearing a stamp of Rs. 25. 00. It was stated in paragraph No. 13 of the plaint that court-fee amount of Rs. 2,246. 40 would be made up. The claim in the Suit was for Rs. 28,000. 00. Thus, the court-fee was short by Rs. 2,221. 40, but this amount was not deposited. The application under Section 151 of the Code stated that the limitation for the Suit for Rs. 28,000. 00 was expiring tomorrow, but the applicant had already filed some suits relating to previous periods which were still undecided on which the applicant had spent over Rs. 15. 000. 00 It was stated that one appeal was already pending for 109 months, the applicant was unable to pay the court-fees immediately in the present suit.

( 7 ) IT was stated as follows :-

"since this litigation has made me pauper, the limitation expires tomorrow and I am unable to pay Court Fee at present. Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that your honour be very kindly pleased to allow me to file the deficit Court Fee of Rs. 2221 40 to; 30-6-1973, under such hard circumstances, and because this suit will otherwise also remain stayed till the decision of my Appeal referred at No. (i) under Section 10 CPC. "this application was moved on 8th December, 1972, and simply required that a period of about six months be granted to the applicant to pay the necessary court-fee.

( 8 ) THE Court was not willing to grant this long period and merely passed an order on 12th December, 1972. allowing time to make up the deficiency by 15th January, 1973. This deficiency was not made up. On 15th January, 1973, further time was prayed for and the Court s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document