JAGAT SINGH Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed for realisation of Rs. 4080/ on the basis of a pronotetion. The defendant -appellant denied the execution as well as its consideration. He also pleaded that as the plaint when filed was insufficiently stamped it was barred by time. All the three pleas were rejected by the trial Court and its findings were affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Jullundur, vide judgment dated December 1. 1971. Still dissatisfied, the defendant has come up in this second appeal.

(2.) The findings on the execution of the pronote and passing of the consideration are pure findings of fact and nothing was urged which could entitle this Court to interfere with those findings in second appeal. The only argument put forward to assail the impugned decree by the Learned Counsel was that the plaint being insufficiently stamped when presented, the suit was barred by time as the deficiency had been made good after the expiry of the limitation. The argument is wholly misconceived. Under Rule 11 of Order 7 C.P.C. the Court is required to give time to the Plaintiff to make deficiency in the Court -fee and it was duly done within the time allowed. No provision of law or authority could be pointed out by the Learned Counsel laying down that the suit in these circumstances would be barred by time. The provisions of Rule 11 are absolutely clear and unambiguous and if the deficiency in the Court fee is made good in the prescribed time it relates back to the date of the suit and on that account the suit cannot be dismissed as barred by time. This appeal, therefore, is wholly devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.