Direction for payment of Court fee within time not confirmed.

These revisions ought not to have been preferred by the State. Clearly the liability of the State is undisputed and without further demand the moneys could properly have been brought into Court for payment out to the petitioner. The State wants to defeat the claim on wholly unsubstantial and technical grounds that do not in the least touch the merits of the case. The lower Court has done the best to avoid manifest injustice, and got round a patently erroneous earlier order wholly devoid of jurisdiction. But the State has chosen to challenge the correctness of the lower Court’s action. So, I shall deal with the case on its merits.

Ramanatha Rao, the first respondent herein, the plaintiff in the suit, out of which these proceedings arise, filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties and for mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit. The Government had started escheat proceedings against the properties, which had been left by one Jagannathan and proceeded in the view that he left no heirs. Ramanatha Rao instituted the suit contending that himself and his brother, the second respondent in these proceedings, were heirs of the said Jagannadhan entitled to the properties. The plaintiff succeeded in this Court in A.S. No. 523 of 1951 having lost in the trial Court. A decree for possession was given with future profits from the date of suit. The State’s Letters Patent Appeal No. 26 of 1956 was dismissed on 18th December, 1959. The plaintiff had meanwhile pursuant to, the decree of this Court on appeal taken possession of the properties on 18th April, 1956. After the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, by I.A. No. 115 of 1962, the plaintiff applied in the trial Court for ascertainment of future mesne profits from the date of the suit till delivery of possession under Order 20, rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, and for a final decree for the profits as ascertained. The income derived by the Government had been deposited by the State in the Treasury and there was no dispute as to the correctness of the amount deposited by the State as the income from the properties. In a partition between the plaintiff and his brother, the second respondent herein the plaintiff became entitled to the sum of Rs. 12,463-45, as and for his share of the profits and in the circumstances in the proceedings under Order 20, rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, on 10th September, 1962, the Sub-Court, Mayuram, gave the plaintiff a final decree in the sum of Rs. 12,463-45. But while passing the decree, the Court added —

“The first respondent is granted two months’ time to pay this amount. The petitioner will pay the Court-fee in two weeks. Call on 25th September, 1962.”

The petition was adjourned to 1st October, 1962 for payment of Court-fee subsequently. On that date, despite the contention on behalf of the plaintiff, that he cannot be called upon to pay Court-fee at that stage and that he may pay the Court-fee when seeking to execute the decree, the Court dismissed the petition for non-compliance with the direction as to payment of Court-fee. The Validity of the order was not questioned then and later the petitioner came out with the two applications I.A. No. 213 of 1964 and I.A. No. 214 of 1964, the orders on which have given rise to these revision petitions. In these applications the plaintiff prayed once again for a final decree for the amount of mesne profits ascertained offering to pay the Court-fee due and in the alternative he prayed for extension of the time originally fixed for payment of the Court-fee after excusing the delay in paying the same. On these applications it was contended for the State that the prior order in I.A. No. 115 of 1962 dismissing the application had become final and the Court had no further jurisdiction in the matter to extend the time and grant a further final decree.

The learned Subordinate Judge examined the provisions of the Code and the old Court-fees Act and having regard to the decisions