9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (9) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for extending the time by a fortnight for paying the full court-fee. The reason given in the petition was that sanction for withdrawing the amount to cover court-fee had not till then been issued by the department concerned due to official routine in spite of best efforts by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The court-fee making up the requisite amount was filed in Court on 17-1-1967 and another formal application under section 149 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, was also presented to this Court for accepting the same. It is these applications which we are called upon to consider and dispose of. Now, it is obvious that the memorandum of appeal was presented in this Court in time. The only question which requires our decision is if it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be exercised in favor of the appellant because a right has accrued to the respondents by reason of the appeal having not been presented in Court within time bearing proper court-fee, is not easy to sustain on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is true that a document not bearing proper court-fee cannot be considered to be validly presented to the Court, but the principle underlying section 149 suggests that the question of court-fee is a question between the Revenue and the litigant and, therefore, the Court has a discretion - albeit judicial discretion - to allow a litigant to pay the court-fee prescribed for any by the law, which he should have paid earlier and the subsequent payment is to have the same force and effect as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed. Rules 11 and 13, Chapter 1-A, Vol. V, High Court Rules and orders, deserve to be kept in view by all litigants, including the Government departments. In the present case, a certified copy of the judgment was actually ready on 20-10-1966 and the court-fee stamp of Rupees 5/- affixed on the appeal was, as it clear from the endorsement, purchased on 20-12-1966. The delay in this matter was not free from risk and the mere fact that the appellant happened to be a Government department and the financial loss was to be borne by the public exchequer, could constitute no adequate and legitimate ground for adopting an indifferent attitude: on the contrary, the fact that a public servant is acting for and on behalf of the State, requires him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
