PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. LORD KRISHAN PAPER INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/petitioner-the Punjab National Bank, instituted a suit against the defendants/respondents for recovery of Rs. 19,20,424.90 paise. The suit was decreed vide order of the trial Court dated 25th November, 1988 and a preliminary decree for the said amount alongwith future interest @ 6% per annum from 29th October, 1985 till the date of realisation was ordered. It was also directed that if the amount aforesaid was not paid within six months i.e. upto 15th June, 1987, the petitioner would be entitled to a final decree. The petitioner was not satisfied with the amount of interest awarded by the trial Court and filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra claiming interest @16% per annum with half yearly rests. At the time of the hearing of the appeal by the lower Appellate Court, the respondent took an objection that the appeal was not maintainable as no Court-fee had been paid and that there was no prayer in the memorandum of appeal that the said Court-fee would be paid on a subsequent date. The learned Appellate Court relying on various judgments of this Court held that as no Court fee had been paid and there was no request for making the Court fee good later, there was no obligation on the Court to allow the appellant an opportunity to make up the deficiency in the Court fee. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been filed by the Bank.

(2.) Mr. Rajiv Trikha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank has, at the very outset, relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Mahibulla and Anr. v. Seth Chamanlal (Dead) by LRs and Ors., 1992 I.S.J. (Banking) 293, to contend that once the appellate Court had come to a conclusion that the memorandum of appeal had not been sufficiently stamped, an opportunity should have been given by the Court to make good the balance of the court-fee within a period to be fixed by the Court and if there was failure to comply with the direction of the Court, the memorandum of appeal was liable to be dismissed at that stage.

(3.) Mr. O.P. Goyal, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has, however, sought to distinguish the judgment cited, on facts and has also placed reliance on some judgments of the High Court in support of his case.