GOBARDHAN SINGH Vs. BARSATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been referred to this Bench for con sideration of the question whether the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Gaya Din v. Lalta Prasad. AIR 1936 All 477 is still good law. Doubts have been cast on the correctness of this deci sion on account of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das, AIR 1961 SC 882.

(2.) SINCE the entire revision has been referred for decision, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. The suit, out of which this revision arises, was filed on July 4. 1966. by the applicant in the court of the Munsif. Mirzapur. Some amendments in the plaint were allowed by the Munsif by his order dated April 11, 1967. Consequent to these amendments, there was a deficiency in the court-fees by Rs. 249.50 as reported by the Munsarim on August 4, 1967. The deficiency in court-fees was not made good within the time allowed and on October 4. 1967, the plaint was rejected as insufficiently stamped. On October 19 .1967. the applicant made an application for restoration and on December 7, 1968, the application was allo.ved. The -pera-tive portion of the order of the Munsif reads:

(3.) IN Gay a Din's case. AIR 1936 All 477 the suit, which had been dismis sed for default, was restored on the ap plication of the plaintiff on the condition that he paid Rs. 8/- for costs to the de fendant on or before 27-10-1934. In case of default, the application was to stand dismissed. Rs. 4/- were paid on 15-9- 1934 but the balance was not paid upto 27-10-1934. On 29-10-1934 the plaintiff made an application for permission to pay the balance and for a direction to the defendant to receive it. The Munsif dismissed the application on the ground that he had no power to extend the time. In the revision before this Court, the plaintiff contended that the time should have been extended under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This sec tion provides:-