LAWS(PVC)-1921-3-59

SURENDRA PROSAD LAHIRI CHOUDHURI Vs. AFTABUDDIN AHMED

Decided On March 04, 1921
SURENDRA PROSAD LAHIRI CHOUDHURI Appellant
V/S
AFTABUDDIN AHMED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was directed against an order of the Small Cause Court Judge decreeing a suit against the petitioner. The plaint in the suit was presented on the 16 May 1919, the last day for filing the suit under the limitation Act. That plaint was insufficiently stamped and the Court required the plaintiff to supply the deficit Court-fee within four days. This was not done and the plaint was rejected on the 28 May 1919. On the 5 June 1919 the plaintiff applied for a review of the order rejecting the plaint and the review was granted without any notice of the application to the defendant. The order of rejection of the plaint was set aside and the plaintiff was allowed 15 days time from the date of that order, the 20 December 1919, for putting in the deficit Court-fee. The Court-fee was duly paid by the plaintiff and the plaint was registered In due course. The suit was tried, and at the hearing of the suit the Pleader for the defendant stated that he would not press any other objection than that of limitation taken in the written statement, and he did not adduce any evidence, nor cross-examined the plaintiff who deposed in support of his claim. The point of limitation was decided against the defendant and the suit decreed.

(2.) Under the present Civil Procedure Code it is clear under Secs.148 and 149 that a Court has power to extend the time for filing deficit Court-fee and can extend that time, even though the period which had been fixed may have expired.

(3.) The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the order of the 20 December reviewing the order rejecting the plaint was bad, because it was made without notice to the defendant. On behalf of the petitioner reliance is placed on the wording of Order XLVII, Rule 4, Clause (a), which provides that no application for review shall be granted without previous notice to the opposite party. So far as they go, the words of the rule are perfectly clear. In support of the contention reliance was placed on the rulings in Golaboo V/s. Ram Dyal Singh 8 W.R. 304 and Zahur-ud-din V/s. Nur-ud-din 14 M.L.J. 7 (P.C.).