ABDUL SATTER Vs. HAMIDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this second appeal came before us for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P. C., we discovered that there was a deficit court-fee due from the appellant in respect of the Courts below. We, therefore, under the provisions of Section 12 (ii), Court-fees Act, read with Section 10 (ii), postponed the hearing and gave the appellant time to make up the deficit, with an order that the appeal would stand dismissed if he did not comply.

(2.) Subsequently, the appellant appeared before us and suggested that this order was not in accordance with the practice of the Court, and that, moreover, though he had accepted the stamp report with regard to the deficit so far as this Court was concerned and had paid it, he still wished to contest the stamp report with regard to the Courts below, which was a matter for the Bench, and not for the Taxing Officer.

(3.) Though, in the circumstances, not having appeared when the previous order was passed, the appellant was not entitled to any further hearing, we decided to give him an opportunity to support his contentions. His learned Advocate immediately conceded to day that he could not successfully challenge the stamp report and that the deficit reported was in fact due from the appellant. He nevertheless objected to paying the amount until after the appeal had been heard under Order 41, Rule 11, and said this was the usual practice.