MAJOR PUNNU RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-petition has arisen out of an application for the refund of court-fee of Rs. 94/-.

(2.) The petitioner had, on 6-5-63, instituted a suit, in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Bilaspur, against Bishan Dass, for the recovery of Rs. 812.80 nP. on the basis of a promissory note. On 9-5-63, the counsel for the petitioner, put in an application, for the refund of the court-fee, paid on the plaint. Both the application and the suit were dismissed, on 2-7-63, in default of appearance. On 5.7.63, a second application, purporting to be under Section 13, Court-fees Act and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for the refund of court-fee, was filed by the counsel for the petitioner. The allegations, made in the application, were as follows: -

(3.) The petitioner is in military service and was posted at Kalka. He had entrusted the papers, for the institution of the suit, against Bishan Dass, to his counsel, with the instructions that it was likely that Bishan Dass may effect a compromise with the petitioner and that the suit be instituted on the last day of limitation only (which was 6-5-63), in case no further instructions were received from the petitioner. Bishan Dass approached the petitioner, at Kalka, on 4.5.63, and effected a compromise. He paid the petitioner Rs. 200/ and executed a promissory note for the balance. On the same day, i. e., 4-5-63, the petitioner sent a telegram to his counsel, directing him not to file the suit. Unfortunately, the telegram, which should have, in the ordinary course of business, reached the counsel on the 4th or 5th May, reached him on the 8th May. As no further instructions were received, the counsel instituted the suit on 6-5-63, at 4.15 P. M. A letter was also received by the counsel, on 6-5-63, but after he had already instituted the suit. The petitioner claimed refund of court-fee on the ground that if the telegram had reached the counsel on the 4th or 5th May, as it should have, in the ordinary course of business, the suit would not have been filed and that he should not be made to suffer for the fault of the Telegraph Department, in delivering the telegram late.