ELIZABETH Vs. FRANCIS EDWIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUR learned and noble brother T.L. Viswanatha Iyer felt some doubt as to the semantics, the drift tenor and impact of Section 52 and its provisos of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 52 of the Act provides for payment of court fee for appeals. For easy understanding of the relevancy of the question, we quote Section 52 of the Act:

(2.) THE question forthrightly posed before us by Justice T.L. Viswanatha Iyer is as to this Court's confines of power and jurisdiction to extend the time for remitting the 2/3rds of the court fee payable after the admission of appeals. Petitioner contended that this Court has got power to extend the time beyond the period of thirty days if there are sufficient cause shown for entitling the Petitioner for an extension of time to pay the balance court fee. We issued notice to the Advocate General. Government Pleader appeared before us and submitted that the view of the Government is that court's power is not absolutely restricted to extend the time after the first stage to 30 days only.

(3.) IN these cases, we are not called upon to investigate or explore such questions. The question before us poses a gray area; where certainty is absolutely necessary. What is the intention behind the second and third provisos of Section 52 of the Act should be made clear to set at rest doubts as to the width, scope and content of the provisos by unmasking the provisions to lay bare the intention and purpose of the legislature manifested in those beneficial provisions. We are bound to do it otherwise it will create to this Court as well as to the lower courts difficulties since the question may arise perennially ever and anon in all courts. We feel that our pronouncement may set at rest, what has to be done by the court when a suitor asks for extension of time for payment of balance court fee in view of Section 52 of the Act. It may appear that the question raised is a simple one and a plain reading of the section itself may afford an answer to the query raised in these cases. Obviously Justice Viswanatha Iyer thought that the matter is not so simple. His Lordship thought that it requires serious consideration and that too by a Division Bench.