RAM KISHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. RAGHBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 27.01.2012 (Annexure P -1) passed by Additional District Judge, Palwal, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners -defendants against judgment and decree dated 12.05.2011 (Annexure P -4) passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Palwal, has been rejected on the ground that requisite Court fee has not been affixed on appeal and the order dated 17.01.2013 (Annexure P -2) passed by Additional District Judge, Palwal whereby application filed by the petitioners -defendants seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with appeal has been dismissed. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that originally the appeal was filed well within time, but the same was rejected for want of deficiency in court fee and after affixing ad valorem court fee, fresh appeal was filed and delay has been occurred on this account. Along with the appeal, application for condonation of delay was also moved. Thus, there had occurred 6 months of delay in filing the appeal. The learned senior counsel further contends that delay was not intentional, rather due to technical reasons. The learned senior counsel relies upon A. Nawab John and others vs. V. N. Subramaniyam : 2012 (3) RCR (Civil) 749 wherein suit was rejected for nonpayment of proper court fee and subsequently the suit filed after making good the deficiency in court fee was beyond limitation period. In these circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed filing of fresh suit. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the memorandum of appeal is in continuation of the civil proceedings, therefore, he is entitled to the condonation of delay which is not a mala fide, rather bona fide for the reasons stated in the application as well as stated before this court while arguing the case.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently oppose the contentions raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioners and contend that once appeal is rejected for want of deficiency of court fee, then the petitioners are at fault and such a delay cannot be condoned. The explanation for delay given by the petitioners is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY appeal was filed within limitation and the same was rejected only on ground of non -payment of requisite court fee. Thereafter, by affixing the requisite court fee, memorandum of appeal was submitted along with an application for condonation of delay. The said application has been declined by the Court by stating that no special reasons have been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. Perusal of application reveals that when earlier appeal was filed neither the petitioners were aware of deficiency in the Court fee nor his counsel in appeal sought time to make good the deficiency in court fee. For that reason, the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed appeal. Since rustic villagers are not aware of the technicalities of law, justice cannot be throttled on the technical ground.