Darbara Singh vs Ramesh Kumar and Another

G.C. Garg, J.—Suit filed by plaintiff-respondent No. l herein was decreed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 2.5.1994. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Darbara Singh, one of the defendants, Petitioner herein filed appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was, however, dismissed by the District Judge under Order 41 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by order dated 3.8.1994 after noticing that the appellant therein had failed to file process fee and furnish registered covers which was ordered to be done within three days by order dated 10.6.1994 and that the same were filed as late as on 27.7.1994. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Order 41 Rule 19 of C.P.C. for re-admission of the appeal. It was submitted before the District Judge that the petitioner had paid the process fee and registered covers etc. to the clerk of his counsel for depositing the same in the Court on 14.6.1994 but since in the meantime the Court were closed on account of summer vacation and the clerk remained ill for 10 days after the vacations were over, the process fee and registered covers etc. could be deposited only on 27.7.1994. These grounds however, did not find favour with the learned District Judge and consequently, the application was also dismissed by order dated 27.7.1995. It is against this order, the present revision has been filed.

On notice of motion having been issued, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has but in appearance.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. From the order dated 3.8.94, it is clear that the learned District Judge by his order dated 10.6.1994 directed the petitioner herein to file process fee and registered covers within three days therefrom but the petitioner failed to do so within the time allowed and deposited the process fee only on 27.7.1994. It is also true that the date fixed in the appeal was 3.8.1994 and notices could not be issued on 27.7.1994. The reason for late deposit of process fee was explained by the petitioner in his application moved for re-admission of the appeal. Be that as it may, in my view, the whole approach of the learned District Judge seems to be too technical. Whereas on the one hand it is the duty of the Court to take coercive steps to get the service effected on the respondents at the earliest possible opportunity and to ensure speedy disposal of the matter, on the other hand, it should also be the endeavour of the Court that as far as possible, the lis between the parties be decided on merits. Thus, considering the entire matter from this point of view, the impugned orders dated 3.8.1994 and 27.7.1995 are set aside. Learned District Judge shall now entertain the appeal and dispose it of in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the receipt of this order. The parties through their counsel are directed to put in appearance before the District Judge, Ferozepur on 15.1.1996. The revision stands disposed of accordingly.