STATE OF BIHAR Vs. MANSOOR ALAM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of an order dated 19th April, 1980. By this order, the appellate court dismissed the appeal,

(2.) The State of Bihar was the appellant before the court below. The State had to deposit the court-fee. The petitioner sent several telegrams as well its special messengers to send the deficit court-fee, but it was not sent within time. The court below gave time on 21st Mar 1980 and 8th April, 1980 for depositing the deficit court-fee. It appears that the total time granted by the court below was less than a month. On 19th April, 1980, the 'court dismissed the appeal for non-payment of court-lees.

(3.) It is a matter of ordinary common-sense that the State takes at least one month's time in depositing court-fee The amount of deficit court-fee was Rs. 1272.40 paise, as it appears from the order-sheet dated 10th Mar. 1980. This was not a small amount. Neither the Government Pleader nor the District Magistrate could have paid this amount from his own pocket. For that purpose, sanction is required to be obtained. The State took sufficient steps in informing the authorities for depositing the court-fee, but unfortunately the amount could not be made available for filing the deficit court-fee stamp. Even the private litigants are granted time at least for one month for depositing the deficit court-fee. I do not understand as to why the court was so strict in not granting time for filing the deficit court-fee stamp to the State. No doubt the State and the private parties both stand on the same footing. If a private party is granted sufficient time to file the deficit court-fee stamp, the State should also be granted sufficient time for filing the deficit court-fee stamp which has not been done in the present case. I, therefore, hold that the court below did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and it acted with material irregularity and not in accordance with the practice prevalent in the civil courts.