SANT KUMAR SATIJA Vs. KRISHAN LAL MANHANS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner challenging the order dated 16.4.2008 vide which the application moved by him for extension of time in making good the deficiency in Court fee has been dismissed and further, due to non-compliance of the order dated 5.4.2008 passed by the Court earlier, the suit itself has been dismissed being not sufficiently stamped with Court fee. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that due to wrong advice of the counsel, the petitioner did not furnish the required Court-fee and preferred to file the appeal without it. He should not be penalized for the fault of his counsel and the petitioner could not furnish the Court-fee as directed by the Court vide order dated 5.4.2008 within the time stipulated for the reason that he had to deposit the admission-fee of his two children. 3. I have gone through the records of the case with the assistance of the counsel for the petitioner. The suit was preferred by the petitioner wherein he had claimed mandatory injunction with subsequent relief of permanent injunction against the defendant and for direction to make payment of damages for his act and conduct which resulted into lowering the prestige, status and honour of the petitioner in the eyes of public including the friends, relatives and staff of his office and for further restraining the defendant- respondent from threatening and insulting him. The following issues were framed in the suit :- "1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction against defendant, as prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 3. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties ? OPD. 4. Whether suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC ? OPD. 5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit ? OPD." 4. Issues No.1 and 2 were taken up together by the trial Court. Issue No. 1, the onus of which was upon the plaintiff, which the plaintiff failed to prove and, therefore, the same was decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 was proved and decided in favour of the defendant. Issues No. 3 and 4, the onus of which was on the defendant were proved and hence decided in favour of the defendant. Similarly, issues No. 5 and 6 again the onus of which was upon the defendants were proved and accordingly decided in favour of the defendant. Issue No. 7 which related to the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fee was also decided in favour of the defendant and a finding was given that ad valorem Court fee which the petitioner was required to submit has not been paid as he had claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages which amount has been calculated by the plaintiff. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Ambala wherein the order dated 5.4.2008 was passed with the finding that ad valorem Court fee was payable in the trial Court and similarly in the appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner was given an opportunity to make good the deficiency in Court-fee along with a direction to make up the deficiency on the plaint as well as memorandum of appeal within a period of 10 days from the date of order and the case was adjourned to 16.4.2008. On the said date, since the Court fee was not paid and a request for adjournment was made with further application for making good the deficiency in the Court fee, the learned District Judge, Ambala vide his order dated 16.4.2008 has rejected the prayer made by the petitioner in the application and consequently, the appeal has also been dismissed being not sufficiently stamped with Court fee. No application or receipts have been placed on record or shown in Court to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that he was unable to pay the Court fee as he was to pay the fee of his children and he had actually paid the same. In my view, the order passed by the learned District Judge is sound in law and calls for no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, finding no merit in the revision petition, I dismiss the same. Petition dismissed.