BHARAT ELECTRICALS Vs. ADDL CIVL JUDGE SITAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJIV Sharma, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY means of instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has sought the quashing of the order dated 22nd August, 1989 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Sitapur in suit No. 112 of 1986 [m/s Prasad Enterprises v. M/s Bharat Electricals and others].

(3.) ELABORATING his arguments, learned Counsel submitted that in view of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a plaint which is insufficiently stamped is liable to be rejected unless the deficiency in the Court fee is made good within the period prescribed by the Court. Moreover, under Section 6 (2) of the Court Fees Act it is clearly provided that the Court may receive a plaint or memorandum of appeal having deficiency in Court fee but no such plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be acted upon unless the plaintiff or the appellant, as the case may be, makes good the deficiency in Court fee within the prescribed period. It is in this background that the petitioners, on receiving summons, made an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint but instead of deciding the said application, the Court concerned passed an order to the effect that the application 17c shall be disposed of alongwith the suit and fixed a for filling written statement and issues.