CORPORATION BANK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this unusual revision petitionte plaintiff and the defendant ave joined in callenging an arbitrary order made by a senior Civil Judge working in the City of Bangalore. As tis revision is filed by all the parties to the suit jointly, I propose to finally dispose of the same witout formally admitting the same. In order to appreciate the question that arises for determination, it is necessary to notice the facts of the case in the first instance. In the course of my order, I will refer to the 1st petitioner who is the plaintiff, as the plaintiff and the 2nd petitioner who is the defendant as the defendant.

(2.) Some time in 1978 the plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 914 of 1978 against the defendant for recovery of certain amounts due by im under a loan transaction, e ad wit the plaintiff. On 12-6-1980, the defendant consented to a decree in the said suit and, tererfore, the said suit was decreed on that day. As required by Civil Rules of Practice, the counsel for the plaintiff did not file is fee Certificate in the said suit witin 3 days from the date of the decree. But, on 16-7-1980, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. II along wit the fee Certificate under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sougt for condonation of delay in filing the Feer Certificate. On I.A. No. II, the defendant also endorsed that e ad no objection for allowing the said application. Notwitstanding the same, somewat strangely the learned Civil Judge rejected I. A. No. II in tese terms: "No Provisions to produce the Fee Certificate after the suit. Rejected Sd/- Kumara Gowda, I Addl. Civil Judge,Bangalore City, 25-7-1980."

(3.) Sri S. P. Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that in the absence of a specific provision, the plaintiff had invoked the inerent powers of the Court saved by Section 151 of the Code and tere was no justification to reject I- A. No II to which the defendant also ad no objection.