JAYRAJAN Vs. SABITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, "FC Act", for short, is treated by the Registry as defective on the ground that the certified copy of the impugned order is not produced by the appellant.

(2.) The matter was sent up to the Bench on the request of the appellant's advocate, who answered the noted defect by stating that "certified copy of the order is not received". By order dated 17-8-2011, the Registry was required to say as to why the appeal is treated as defective.

(3.) Thereupon, Registry states that all copies furnished by the court shall be certified to be true copies by the officer appointed for the purpose and shall be sealed with the seal of the court in terms of Rule 253 of the Civil Rules of Practice, referred to hereinafter as "CRP", for short, and that Rule 254 of those Rules states that every copy shall bear an endorsement initialed by the Fair Copy Superintendent or the Examiner, as the case may be, showing the eleven (11) items of particulars enumerated in that Rule. According to the Registry, (he copy of the impugned order, produced along with the memorandum of appeal, does not contain the endorsement regarding the Number and Date of application, Date of calling for stamp papers, Date of production of stamp papers, etc. Obviously, the Registry was making reference to the different endorsements that have to be there, if Rule 254 of CRP were to be followed. It is also stated that no court fee stamp is seen affixed on the copy, except the document fee stamp fixed by the appellant while filing the appeal. The Registry, therefore, says that the copy produced, seems to be a free copy issued by the Family Court. This, therefore, is the substratum of the objection of the Registry to register the appeal on the basis of the copy of the impugned order, produced by the appellant.