Bishamber Nath vs Joginder Pal Sood and Others

Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 4-11-2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Civil Suit No. 32-S of 1995/96, titled Bishamber Nath v. Joginder Pal Sood and Ors.

Record of the case shows that the suit was filed without affixing Court fees as required under law. When the matter was being heard before the trial Court on 19-9-2000, it was conceded on behalf of the Appellant-Plaintiff that this position is correct and he would make good deficiency in Court fee. Time was allowed to him to do the needful on or before 23-10-2000. Requisite Court fee was not affixed.

An application was moved on 2-11-2000 by the Plaintiff wherein seven days time was prayed for making good the defeciency in terms of the order of the court, dated 23-9-2000. Trial Court on examination of provision of Order VII) of CPC found that ground of exceptional nature was not made out for extension of time, as such prayer for extension was declined.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. All other Counsel appearing in this case except Mr. N.K. Sood Advocate, submitted that they have no objection to the impugned order being set aside thereby enabling the Appellant-Plaintiff to make good the deficiency of Court fee within some -reasonable time. So far Mr. Sood is concerned, he has submitted for upholding the order of the trial Court impugned in this appeal.

Before considering submission of Mr. Sood, we may notice here that so far grant/refusal of time is concerned, it is purely a procedural matter. Purpose of the procedural law is to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart the same. If too technical or pedantic approach is accepted as was done by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order, then the result would be that it is likely to result in failure of justice. By making this observation we may not be understood to say that indefinite time needs to be allowed to a litigant like Appellant. Besides this entire legal system, courts, lawyers and justice administration system is meant to for doing justice between the parties. At the same time to ensure that the controversy is set at rest between them once for all.

Fact remains that where grant of substantial justice is pitted against grant of some time and/or its extension, as the case may be, former has to be kept in view, by the courts. This is one view of the matter. Secondly, so far affixation of Court fee is concerned, it is primarily a matter between the State and its subject, because the amount of Court fees goes to the coffers of the State. This again also does not mean that a litigant like the Appellant can unnecessarily delay the matter by seeking extension and/or by not affixing the proper Court fees.

What Appellant had prayed on 2-11-2000 was a week''s extension for complying with the order dated 19-9-2000, passed by the trial Court (when four weeks time was allowed to the Appellant to make good the deficiency). Court had ample power to extend the time even in cases where time had already elapsed. 19th September, 2000 was the date on which the said order was passed. Deficiency of the Court fee was to be made good as per the order on or before 23-10-2000. Needful was not done and on 2-11-2000 one week''s time was prayed. On 4-11-2000 impugned order has been passed. Thus by not extending time by Anr. five days, the Court below failed to carry out its duty. Nor the matter had been delayed for more one and a half year after passing of the impugned order. Thus we are constrained to hold that the Court below had taken too technical view of the provision of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Courts are established and are respected for doing justice between the parties that is the object which has to be kept in view. Mr. N.K. Sood Advocate was unable to explain except for urging with vehemence that no exceptional ground is made out. This plea has been raised simply to be rejected.

No other point is urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and as a consequence of it, order of the trial Court rejecting the application dated 4-11-2000 for making good the deficiency in Court fee is hereby quashed and set aside. Thus time for making good the same in terms of the order of the trial Court dated 19-9-2000 is hereby extended till 15-7-2002 on or before which date Appellant shall make good the said deficiency. It is clarified in case needful is not done by or before this date, then in such a situation, this appeal shall stand dismissed. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 15-7-2002. Record be sent back so as to reach before that date.

No costs.