BIPINBEHARI Vs. ASOKA MARKETING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant against the order rejecting the plaint for non-payment of the court-fee.

(2.) The suit was for declaration that the decree passed by Calcutta High Court in Award Case No. 74 of 1958 is void against the plaintiff and therefore, it is not executable which was valued at Rs. 14,500/- and court fee of Rs. 150/- was paid. On the objection of the defendant, trial Court by order dated 14-8-1975 directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 14,500/- under Section 7(iv-a) of the court-fees Act, 1870, as amended in orissa. On the next date, plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint so far as the relief claimed. Plaintiff sought for substituting the following relief :- "Let it be declared that the plaintiff has no liability in respect of the amount decreed by the Calcutta High Court in Award Case No. 74 of 1958 dated 22-7-1963 as the same is not binding on him." This prayer for amendment was refused by order dated 24-9-1975. Plaintiff filed Civil Revision No. 378 of 1975 in this Court against the order calling upon him to pay ad valorem Court-fee and Civil Revision No. 379 of 1975 against the order refusing amendment of the plaint. Civil Revision No. 378 of 1975 was dismissed on 3-2-1976 in effect confirming the order of payment of ad valorem court fee. While allowing Civil Revision No. 379 of 1975 by order dated 3-2-1976 allowing the prayer for amendment of the plaint, direction was given to pay ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 14,500/- within one month. Ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 14,500/- was not paid by 3-3-1976 and an application was filed in the trial Court on 2-3-1976 for extension of time till 5-3-1976 to pay the balance court-fee of Rupees 225/-. The application could not be taken up for final disposal on that date in view of absence of the Presiding Officer. On 6-3-1976, court-fee of Rs. 225/- was paid claiming the same to be ad valorem fee. Trial Court accepted the court-fee on 6-3-1976 and fixed the case for hearing. On 19-7-1976, the defendant brought to the notice of the trial Court that the plaint should be rejected for non-payment of court-fee. After hearing the parties on the question, trial Court rejected the plaint by order dated 20-7-1976 which is the impugned order in this appeal.

(3.) Two questions arise for consideration in this appeal : (i) Whether the court-fee paid is sufficient ? and (ii) Whether the court-fee paid late could have been accepted without a specific order of this Court extending the time ?