Brijbhukhan vs Tota Ram - 1928 Supreme(All) 101

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1928 Supreme(All) 101

SULAIMAN
Brijbhukhan – Appellant
Versus
Tota Ram – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.

1. It seems to be the practice of some junior vakils to file appeals with insufficient Court-fee stamps, knowing that they are insufficient, with a view to save limitation. I think that such deliberate attempts to get round the provisions of the Court-fees Act should not be tolerated. If a litigant has not got sufficient money ready to pay the whole Court-fees, the appeal ought to be filed when such Court-fees have been made good, accompanied with an application for extension of time. But the filing of an insufficiently stamped appeal, knowing it to be defective, should not be permitted.

2. No doubt the Bombay High Court has held that an appellate Court is bound to accept an insufficiently stamped memorandum of appeal and to grant time to make it good. Achut Ramchandra Pai v. Nagappa Bab [1913] 38 Bom. 41. But this view has not been followed at Patna, Ram Sahay Ram Pande v. Lachmi Narayan Singh [1917] 3 P. L.J. 74, nor by the Lahore High Court, Lekh Ram v. Ramji Das [1919] 1 Lah. 234. The Madras High Court has also dissented from the Bombay view- Akkaraju Narayana Rao and Namburi Venkatakrishna Rao Vs. Akkaraju Seshamma and Others, AIR 1915 Mad 426(2) .

Click Here to Read the rest of this document