IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Ramratan Singh v. Janakchand Rana
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 782 of 2015 (J); Decided on 12.5.2023
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 173 -- appeal -- Court fee not paid -- application for ignoring default rejected -- order of High Court to pay Court fee within 15 days -- cannot be altered unless reviewed -- another order obtained on misrepresentation hiding aforesaid order -- lawyer miserably failed to act as responsible officer of Court -- appeal dismissed. [Para 5]
e¨Vj ;ku vfèkfu;e] 1988 & èkkjk 173 & vihy & U;k;ky; 'kqYd lanRr ugha & O;frØe dh mis{kk djus d¢ fy, vkosnu ukeatwj & iaæg fnu d¢ Òhrj U;k;ky; 'kqYd lanRr djus dk mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns'k & tc rd iqufoZy¨du ugha fd;k tk,] ifjofrZr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & iwo¨ZDr vkns'k d¨ fNikdj nqO;Zins'ku ls ,d vU; vkns'k vfÒçkIr fd;k x;k & odhy U;k;ky; d¢ mÙkjnk;h vfèkdkjh d¢ :i esa dk;Z djus esa cqjh rjg vlQy & vihy [kkfjtA ¼iSjk 5½
ORDER
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 18.10.2014 passed by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni in MACC No.269/2013.
2. Although, the appellants have valued this Appeal at Rs.2,00,000/- but have not paid the Court fee at all.
3. The office had raised an objection that the Court fee of Rs.5,000/- has not been paid. Accordingly, the appellants moved I.A. No.6832/2017 for ignoring the default of 2.5 % Court fee pointed out by the Registry.
4. This Court by order dated 20.6.2017 rejected the application and directed the appellants to comply the order in respect of Court fee within 15 days. It appears that in spite of the said direction, the appellants did not pay the Court fee and when the case was listed on 14.8.2018, it was once again submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the question of payment of Court fee be deferred without drawing attention of the Coordinate Bench of this Court towards the order dated 20.6.2017 passed in this case itself. It appears that the counsel for the appellants misled the Coordinate Bench by pointing out the orders passed in M.A. No.88/2018 and M.A.No. 852/2015 and submitted that office objection with regard to the Court fee be deferred and accordingly, the submission made by the counsel for the appellants was accepted.
5. Once the objection with regard to deferment of Court fee was already rejected by order dated 20.6.2017, then the said order cannot be changed/ altered unless and until it is reviewed. From order dated 14.8.2018, it is clear that in the said order, there is no reference of order dated 20.6.2017 and in fact it appears that it has been passed on the misrepresentation made by the counsel for the appellants. This conduct of the counsel for the appellants cannot be appreciated and it was expected that he would act as a responsible officer of the Court but unfortunately he miserably failed in doing so. The Lawyers are always expected to act fairly and should not represent the case with ill designs.
6. Be that whatever it may be.
7. Since the Court fee has not been paid, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Court fees should be paid on the enhanced amount claimed in the appeal, and non-payment of Court fees cannot be claimed as a matter of conveni....
Court can exercise discretion to accept late court fee payments based on unintentional errors by counsel.
The provisions of Section 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure are intended to apply to cases of bona fide mistakes and not where a party consciously and intentionally avoided putting in defici....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.