SITA RAM SAHU Vs. KEDARNATH SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order of the learned .Civil Judge granting time to the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court-fees after the plaint had been rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaint had been insufficiently stamped.

(2.) It is necessary to state a few dates in order to appreciate the point that arises for our consideration in this application in revision. On 13-2-1950 a suit was filed on the foot of a mortgage deed. There was report by the Stamp Reporter in respect of some deficiency in regard to court-fees. Time in the first instance was granted by the Court to make good the deficiency upto 16-2-1950. The deficiency was not made good, but an application for further time was made on behalf of the plaintiff. Time was granted. It is not necessary to mention in detail the various occasions on Which time was granted to the plaintiff to make good the deficiency, for we think it sufficient for our purposes to state that the plaintiff was granted several opportunities to make good the deficiency. We may further mention that the plaintiff did not, however, remain inactive completely, for he did pay into Court various sums in court-fees towards the deficiency. This showed that the plaintiff's inability was not feigned or that the plaintiff's effort to get more time was made mala fide. On 24-7-1950 the Court made an order granting some time to the plaintiff and in that very order it said that the plaintiff was not to be allowed any further opportunity to make good the deficiency. The deficiency had to be under this order made good by 9-8-1950. On that date the plaintiff apparently paid Rs. 200/- in court-fees and was allowed fifteen days more time to pay up the balance. The plaintiff was unable to make good the deficiency of the balance and he, therefore, made an application praying for extension of time, chiefly on the ground, that he was seriously ill and, therefore, he could not make arrangements in regard to the balance of the court-fees due from him. The Court rejected the plaintiff's prayer. In the order refusing time the Court made no reference to whether or not it believed the plaintiff's case that he was ill and his inability to pay the court-fees was due to that fact. On 25-8-1950, a formal order of rejection in respect of the plaint was made under Order 7, Rule 11 (c) of the Code. Subsequently, the plaintiff made an application for reviewing the order of rejection of the plaint. That application for review was also rejected on 28-9-1950. Subsequently, on 31-10-1950 the plaintiff made an application to the Court to reconsider in effect the order, which it had made earlier refusing to extend time for the payment of the court-fees to the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated in an affidavit that he was seriously ill with typhoid and he supported his contention by producing three medical certificates. At the earlier stage when this question of plaintiff's illness incidentally came up for consideration before the Court there was before the Court no material on which the plaintiff's contention could find support, that is to say, there were no medical certificates, but this time there were before, the Court the medical certificates. The Court considered this application of the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's allegation that he was suffering front, typhoid was right and further that his inability to pay the requisite court-fees was due to his illness. The Court, therefore, recalled its own order of rejecting the plaint which it had made on 25-8-1950. The Court granted the plaintiff three days time to make good the deficiency, for the plaintiff had said that in spite of his illness he had made a desperate effort to collect the balance and he was prepared to pay the balance within a very short time. The order rejecting the plaint was recalled and the Court directed the suit to be put back in its place in the register of suits and granted the plaintiff, as we have said, three days time to make good the deficiency. The deficiency was made good within this time. This application in revision is directed against the aforementioned order of the Court.

(3.) The contention put forward by counsel for the applicants is that the Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of rejection which has been made by it on 25-8-1950, and which had been reiterated in its order of 28-9-1950. It was further contended that the Court had no jurisdiction, also, after the rejection of the plaint to grant the plaintiff time to make good the deficiency.