PATIL SHYAMLAL Vs. GAURISHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHIUDDIN , A.J.C. 1. This is an appeal, which was filed in this Court on 19th July 1929, on a court-fee of Rs. 10, against the judgment and decree dated 12th April 1929, passed by Mr. Section D. Phatak? Additional Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Hoshangabad, decreeing plaintiff's claim against defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 4649-12-7 with proportionate costs, and future interest. The proper court-fee payable in this case is Rs. 260, but the appeal has been filed on a court-fee of Rs. 10 only, and a month's time is asked for, to make up the deficiency in court-fees. The application filed with the appeal mentions the following facts That a preliminary issue was framed about the admissibility or otherwise of oral evidence and was decided against the appellant. That the appellant came to Nagpur with the intention of filing an appeal against that order and was told that an appeal could be filed on a court fee of Rs. 2 but did not file the appeal, as he was advised to wait till the final decision of the suit. That after the suit was finally decided, he sent his man to get the appeal filed, but being under the impression, that the appeal could be filed on a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 2, he did not provide his man with the necessary funds. That the man came to know at Nagpur that full court-fee will have to be paid and as the last date for filing the appeal was 20th July 1929 and as there was not enough time for the man to go back and to arrange and send Rs. 355, the appeal was filed on a stamp of Rs. 10.

(2.) RELYING on these facts the appellants want a month's time to make good the deficiency in court-fee.

(3.) IN this case, the decree was passed on 12th April 1929, and the appellants must have come to know on that date that it was for a sum of Rs. 4,649-12-7. Any one at Hoshangabad would have told them, that they will have to pay full court-fee on the amount decreed, if they wanted to file an appeal. Apparently they made no enquiry and sent a man to Nagpur to file the appeal, when only two days were left for the period of limitation to expire. The advice which was given before was about the court-fee to be paid in a miscellaneous appeal or a revision application, against an interlocutory order, but no advice was sought or was given about the court-fee to be paid, on a memorandum of appeal against the decree which might be eventually passed in the case. It is not alleged that the appellants made any enquiry about the amount of court-fee which it would be necessary for them to pay on their memorandum of appeal. They applied for copies of judgment and decree on 3rd July 1929 and got these copies on 12th July 19.29. They could have got the requisite information at Hoshangabad, about the court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal, after they had obtained the copies of judgment and decree. The appellants never cared to find out after the decree was passed, as to what court-fees would be required for filing an appeal against the decree passed against them. The reasons stated in the application are not sufficient to extend time and therefore I refuse to do so.