LAWS(PAT)-1983-4-13

DULHIN JIBACHLI KUER Vs. SITARAM SHARMA

Decided On April 15, 1983
DULHIN JIBACHLI KUER Appellant
V/S
SITARAM SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed against an order dated 23-9-1978.

(2.) Money Suit No. 32 of 1977 was dismissed for want of payment of deficit court-fee on 8-5-1978. 8-5-1978 was the date fixed for filing the deficit court-fee amounting to Rs. 2,642/10 ps. The petitioner filed a petition for extending the date for payment of the deficit court-fee. This application was filed on 8-5-1978. This application was purported to be under Section 148, Civil P.C., (hereinafter referred to as 'file Code'). The Court below did not extend the time and dismissed the suit for default on account of non-payment of the deficit court-fee. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code for restoration of Money Suit No. 32 of 1977. The Court below, by the impugned order dated 23-9-1978 refused to restore the suit on the ground that the application under Order IX, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code was not maintainable:

(3.) In my opinion, the Court below erred on the occasion when the Court below refused to extend the time on 8-5-1978. The Court below also erred in not restoring the suit under Section 151 of the Code. The point raised in this case is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das, (AIR 1961 SC 882). The submission of the petitioner is also supported by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Lall Singh v. Jalim Singh, (ILR (1970) 49 Pat 97). In a case of this type, it is not at all necessary to file a review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. The Court has sufficient power to set aside such order under Section 151 of the Code. In the circumstance, I set aside the order of the Court below and restore Money Suit No. 32 of 1977 to the original place. I direct the petitioner to pay the deficit court-fee i.e. Rs. 2,642/10 Ps. within two months from today. The Court below committed an error of jurisdiction and hence I set aside the impugned order.