AMI CHAND Vs. URMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 19.12.2013, dismissing his application for enlargement of time to affix the ad valorem court fee.

(2.) IN short, the plaintiff -petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of a house and challenged the sale deed dated 13.05.2013, allegedly executed by him in favour of the defendant. The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (here -in -after referred to as the "CPC") which was allowed on 15.10.2013 and the plaintiff -petitioner was directed by the trial Court to affix the ad valorem court fee as per value of the sale deed. He moved an application for extension of time on 20.11.2013. The time was extended up till 19.12.2013 but on that day, the petitioner moved another application for extension of time on the ground that he is 80 years old, suffering from various old age ailments, could not walk properly, therefore, unable to attend the Court and would pay the ad valorem court fee on the next date. He also prayed that his personal appearance be also exempted for that date. This application dated 19.12.2013 has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the Court cannot extend the time beyond 30 days in total and since 30 days had already expired, therefore, further extension cannot be granted. The plaint was thus rejected on the ground of not affixing the ad valorem court fee.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the time cannot be extended beyond 30 days, as fixed by the Legislature.