JAI SHANKER Vs. CHANDRESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was directed by this court on November 6, 1979 to pay to the respondent Rs. 330/ - as lawyer's fee for opposing the appeal and Rs. 120/ - as incidental expenses, total Rs. 450/ - and one month's time was granted to the appellant for making the payment. The aforesaid amount has not been paid chough the case was adjourned more than once to enable the appellant to comply with the aforesaid order of the court.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal may be heard and the respondent may be directed to take out execution of the order of this court regarding grant of expenses In the alternative it is submitted that further proceedings in the appeal may be ordered to be stayed till the order is complied with. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar , Smt. Anita v. Birendra Chandra : AIR1962Cal88 , Ram Chandra Rao v. Kowsalya AIR 1969 Mysore 76 and Anuradha v. Santosh Nath AIR 1976 Delhi, 246.

(3.) HAVING regard to the circumstances of the case weare inclined to think that no useful purpose will be served by directing stay of hearing of the appeal on the ground of non compliance with the order of this Court. The intention of the Legislature behind enacting Section 24 is clear and it is this that if one of the spouses deserves to be awarded necessary expenses for defending a matrimonial matter the court should make an order to that effect so that the effected spouse may plead its case effectively. We are consequently of opinion that the only just and proper course would be to grant one more opportunity to the appellant in the interest of justice to comply with the order of this court and make it the last opportunity on the pain of dismissal of the appeal in case the order is not complied who.