NAND KISHORE JAIN Vs. NARINDER NATH BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for rendition of accounts a decree for a sum of Rs. 2626.50 paise was passed against the respondents. He challenged this decree by filing an appeal which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. In the grounds of appeal taken before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, the appellant stated that a decree for a sum of Rs. 8000/- should have been passed against the respondents. He, however, paid a court-fee of Rs. 357.40 paise on the memorandum of appeal. This appeal was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, on the ground that the proper court-fee had not been paid. The appellant has challenged that order in the instant appeal.

(2.) On the memorandum of appeal presented to this Court, the appellant has fixed court-fee on the sum which represents the difference of Rs. 8000/- and Rs. 2626.90 paise. Mr. Sarup Chand Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that the present appeal was incompetent because the appellant should have paid a court-fee on Rs. 8000/-. He has further argued that it was not open to the learned Additional District Judge to dismiss the appeal filed before him for want of proper court-fee even without giving an opportunity to the appellant to make up the deficiency.

(3.) On the first point the decision stands concluded against Mr. Goyal by virtue of the pronouncements of this Court in Uday Chand V. Mohanlal and others, 1957 AIR(P&H) 315 Atma Singh and others V. Mohan Lal and others, 1959 AIR(P&H) 387 and S. Tarlok Singh S. Sant Singh and others V. Sardarni Daljit Kaur, 1961 AIR(P&H) 426 Mr. Sarup Chand Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents has cited M/s Ajey Textiles and others V. The British India Corporation and others, 1970 2 ILR(P&H) 127 in which a Division Bench of this Court has held that discretion to allow an appellant to make up the deficiency in court-fee should be exercised if the appellant brings on record circumstances which show that he was genuinely unable to pay the court-fee at the time he presented the memorandum of appeal. There is no quarrel with that proposition of law. In any event that authority does establish that the appellate Court can exercise the discretion to allow an appellant to make up the deficiency in court-fee. Herein the appellant was perhaps under the impression that since the suit was one for rendition of accounts he would be allowed to make up the deficiency in court-fee after his claim had been determined. In the circumstances, I allow this appeal and remand the case to the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, with the direction that he should re-decide this appeal in accordance with law after allowing the appellant an opportunity of either making up the deficiency in court-fee or amending the memorandum of appeal so as to restrict his claim to the sum for which the court-fee had already been paid. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala on November 23, 1978.