Corporation Bank Ltd. and Another

In this unusual revision petition, the plaintiff and the defendant have joined in challenging an arbitrary order made by a senior Civil judge working in the City of Bangalore. As this revision is filed by all the parties to the suit jointly, I propose to finally dispose of the same without formally admitting the same. In order to appreciate the question that arises for determination, it is necessary to notice the facts of the case in the first instance. In the course of my order, I will refer to the 1st petitioner who is the plaintiff, as the plaintiff and the 2nd petitioner who is the defendant as the defendant.

Some time in 1978 the plaintiff instituted 0. S. No. 914 of 1978 against the defendant for recovery of certain amounts due by him under a loan transaction, he had with the plaintiff. On 12-6-1980, the defendant consented to a decree in the said suit and, therefore, the said suit was decreed on that day. As required by Civil Rules of Practice, the counsel for the plaintiff did not file his Fee Certificate in the said suit within 3 days from the date of the decree. But, on 16-7-1980, the plaintiff filed I. A. No. II along with the Fee Certificate u/s 151 of the CPC and sought for condonation of delay in filing the Fee Certificate. On I. A. No. II, the defendant also endorsed that he had no objection for allowing the said application. Notwithstanding the same, somewhat strangely the learned Civil Judge rejected I. A No. II in these terms:

"No provisions to produce the Fee certificate after the suit. Rejected.

Sd/- Kumara Gowda,

I. Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City, 25-7-1980."

Sri S. P. Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that in the absence of a specific provision, the plaintiff had invoked the inherent powers of the Court saved by Section 151 of the Code and there was no justification to reject I. A. No. II to which the defendant also had no objection.

Along with I. A. No. II one Sri R. Girijesh, a member of the Bangalore Bar and a college of Sri Shankar filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the Fee Certificate could not be filed within 3days. Even the defendant who had rightly consented to a decree, had no objection to allow I. A. No. II. Almost as a matter of course, such application are filed by counsel and are allowed by Courts every day. Every situation that arises in the day-to-day administration of justice, cannot be visualised and provision made for the same by the legislature. Section 151 of the Code which saves the inherent powers a Court is intended to meet such situation and in exercise of the inherent powers, it is open to a Court to condone the delay in filing a Fee Certificate. In my opinion, the learned Civil Judge was wholly unjustified in rejecting I. A. No. II and driving the parties to file this revision petition. I am distressed to note that a senior Civil Judge should have rejected a simple application to which the defendant also had no objection.

In the light of my above discussion, I allow this revision petition, set aside the order dated 25-7-1980 of the learned Civil Judge on I. A. No. II and allow I. A. No. II as prayed for by the 1st petitioner/plaintiff.

Civil revision petition allowed.

As the plaintiff and the defendant have joined in filing this revision petition, the question of awarding costs does not arise and, therefore, there will be no order as to costs.

Revision allowed.