PISHORI LAL BHATIA Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER NARANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 16.4.2003 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur allowing the application filed under Section 149 of the Code seeking permission to deposit the deficient Court fee of Rs. 337.10. The Ld. Addl. District Judge has recorded a finding that it was an inadvertent mistake and deficient amount of court fee was affixed. For his view, the ld. Addl. District Judge has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Amrik v. Union of India and others, AIR 1974 Pb. 444.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondents i.e. Subhash Chander Narang filed a civil suit for declaration against the defendant-petitioner to the effect that he is tenant of defendant-respondent No. 4 i.e. Municipal Council, Abohar in the shop bearing No. 77 MCA. A further relief of possession of the aforementioned shop was also claimed against the defendant-petitioner. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed. When the defendant-petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, an application under Section 149 of the Code was filed by the plaintiff-respondent seeking permission to deposit the court fee of Rs. 337.10. The application was contested by the defendant-petitioner on the plea that there was no sufficient reason disclosed in the application by the plaintiff-respondent explaining the delay in depositing the court fee before the trial Court at the appropriate time. The application has been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge and feeling aggrieved, the defendant-petitioner has approached this Court by challenging the aforementioned order.

(3.) THE facts of the present case has to be examined in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments. A finding has been recorded by the learned Additional District Judge that on account of an inadvertent mistake on the part of plaintiff-respondents, deficiency in payment of meagre sum of Rs. 337.10 as court fee has occurred and the same deserves to be condoned. Once such a discretion has been allowed by the Code under Section 149 of the Code as interpreted by the Supreme Court, I do not feel persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the learned Additional District Judge. Moreover, the deficiency is very meagre and could be caused by virtue of wrong calculations. The revision petition, therefore, is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.