LAWS(P&H)-2013-10-45

BHUPINDER PAL KAUR Vs. AMARJ SURJIT SINGH

Decided On October 24, 2013
Bhupinder Pal Kaur Appellant
V/S
Amarj Surjit Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGAL representative of original plaintiff since deceased has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 20.08.2013 (Annexure P - 5) passed by the lower Appellate Court thereby dismissing application (Annexure P - 6) filed by the petitioner herein for dismissal of the first appeal (Annexure P - 3), which has been instituted by defendants no.1 and 2 against judgment (Annexure P - 1) and preliminary decree (Annexure P -2) passed by the trial Court. Respondent herein was defendant no.2 in the trial Court whereas his mother was defendant no.1 in the trial Court. Defendant no.1 has since died and is now represented by defendant no.2 -respondent as her legal representative. Defendants no.1 and 2/appellants before the lower appellate Court along with their appeal (Annexure P - 3) filed application (Annexure P - 4) alleging that the appeal was required to be filed urgently but due to summer vacation, requisite Court fee for the appeal was not readily available. The appellants undertook to pay the requisite Court fee in due course. The appellants, therefore, prayed that payment of requisite Court fee for filing the appeal be exempted and the appellants be allowed to pay the Court fee in due course.

(2.) PETITIONER herein in her application (Annexure P - 6) pleaded that the appellants had not paid requisite Court fee on appeal with malafide intention and, therefore, the appeal is liable to dismissal on this ground. The appellants by filing reply (Annexure P - 7) opposed the application and denied the averments made therein. The appellants also undertook to pay the Court fee as and when directed.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner while stating that requisite Court fee has since been paid by the appellants in the lower Appellate Court, pursuant to impugned order (Annexure P - 5), contended that the appellants in the lower Appellate Court intentionally did not pay the requisite Court fee while filing the appeal and avoided the payment thereof for more than 2 years and, therefore, they did not deserve any opportunity to pay the requisite Court fee as granted by the lower Appellate Court.