NARAIN PARSAD Vs. BANARSI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act.

(2.) The defendant-appellants filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge, Bulandshanr. There was an office report to the effect that there was a deficiency in the court-fee paid. The matter came up before the District Judge for consideration and on 31-3-1951 he held that the court-fee paid was sufficient. At that stage the plaintiff respondent had not put any appearance and that order was passed only after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants. On 13-11-1952, an application was filed by the plaintiff respondent that there was a deficiency in the court-fee paid by the appellants and the appeal was not properly valued. Two questions, therefore, arose before the court below. (1) Whether the objection of the respondent could be heard after the order dated 31-3-1951 of the learned District Judge, and (2). Whether in fact there was a deficiency in the court-fee paid and whether the memorandum of appeal was under-valued? The court held on both these points against the appellants. It came to the conclusion that it was open to it to reconsider that objection and that there was a deficiency in the payment of the court-fee. The deficient court-fee was ordered to be paid within twenty days from 19-2-1953, the date on which the Civil Judge passed the order.

(3.) Aggrieved by that decision this appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants under Section 6-A of the Court Fees Act.