HANUMAPPA Vs. ASSTT COMMR LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In our opinion, it is necessary to narrate a few facts before proceeding to deal with these I.As.

(2.) The appeal papers were returned to comply with certain objections raised by the office. One of the objections was that court fee paid was deficit. Thereafter, the appeal was represented. But there happened to be delay of about three-hundred and forty nine days. Deficit court fee was made good when the appeal was represented. I.A. 1 was filed with a prayer to condone the delay in refiling the appeal papers. That came up for orders before this Bench on 20-1-1981. By passing a considered order, we rejected I.A. 1. Further on, we found that no order had been passed in this appeal at any stage as required by S.149 and O.7 R.11 of the Civil P.C. extending time to pay court fee. We rejected the memorandum of appeal also.

(3.) It is evident from the aforesaid, that the memorandum of appeal has been rejected on the ground that there was no extension of time granted for payment of deficit court fee and the memorandum of appeal presented having not been properly stamped.