HEEMANSHU TRADERS Vs. DELHI ELECTRICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of C. Ms. 710/74, 830/74and 38/75 and 150/75 in FAO (OS) 42/74. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge in a patent action transferred to the High Court under proviso to Section 29 of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The judgement was announced on July 22, 1974. After taking into account the time spent in obtaining certified copies, the last date of limitation for filing this appeal was September 24, 1974. The appeal was filed a day earlier i.e. on September 23, 1974. The decree-sheet bore a court-fee stamp of Rs. 2.75 only as against the requisite fee of Rs. 5.25. The office made an endorsement that the decree-sheet was not properly stamped. Papers were collected by the learned counsel for the appellant on September 28, 1974 and the appeal was re-filed on October 4, 1974, but inadvertantly the deficient court-fee was affixed not on the decree-sheet but on the certified copy of the judgement. The Office again repeated the objection. The appeal was then re-filed with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (C.M. 710/74) praying for condonation of delay. On October 10, 1974 the Office then pointed out that the appeal was also not accompanied by a deposit-receipt of Rs. 100.00 on account of printing charges as required by rule 9 of Chapter 2-A of the High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. V. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant the case was put up before the court on October 14, 1974. The admission Bench issued notice of C.M. 710/74 only. On December 23, 1974 the appellant made an application under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure for exemption from depositing the printing charges. This application, it is alleged was misplaced. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, filed another application on Jan. 15, 1975 (C. M. 88/75). It was prayed in this application that the appellant be allowed to produce cyclostyled or typed records and it may be ordered that the deposit of Rs. 100.00 was not necessary. In the meantime, it is admitted, the sum of Rs. 100.00 was also deposited in court.

(2.) After receipt of the notice of C. M. 710/74 the respondent filed an application under Order 41, rule 3 and 10(1) Civil Procedure Code. (C. M. 830/74) and prayed that the appeal be rejected or dismissed as having nut been filed in compliance with rule 9 of Chapter 2-A of the High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. V and being not accompanied by a sufficiently stamped copy of the decree.

(3.) On February 15, 1975 the appellant put in yet another application (C. M. 150/75) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, again, explaining the circumstances in which the appeal was filed and praying for condonation of the defaults of the appelant and for the appeal being admitted.