HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. PUSHPA DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/ decree-holder has approached this Court impugning the order dated 7.5.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Court below vide which his application for extension of time for deposit of Court fee was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a suit for setting aside the sale-deed dated 23.3.2006 being a fraudulent document. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit on 18.5.2011. The petitioner was directed to value the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction on the basis of valuation of land as per Circle rates on the date of institution of the suit and pay the Court fee within 30 days. The defendants in the suit being not aggrieved against the judgment and decree did not challenge the decree of the trial court. As the court fee could not be deposited within the period permitted by the Court, application for extension of time was filed on 24.8.2011, which was dismissed by the learned Court below vide impugned order.

(3.) Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in D. V. Paul vs Manisha Lalwani, 2010 4 RCR(Civ) 190, and judgments of this Court in Hukam and others vs Manga and another, 2004 1 RCR(Civ) 422 and Gram Panchayat Sahupura vs Panna Lal and others, 2010 2 RCR(Civ) 88, the Court has ample power to enlarge the time granted for deposit of Court fee or for compliance of any direction. It can even be beyond the period of 30 days. Merely on technical grounds where the petitioner on account of some reasons could not deposit the Court fee within 30 days but file application for extension of time should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree.