Nallendra Konar vs Venkatachala Konar and Others

Frederick William Gentle, C.J.—This is an application to excuse the delay, if any, in the presentation of an appeal. On the 21st September, 1945, the applicant presented an application to the lower Court asking for (a) a copy of the judgment and (b) a copy of the final decree. So far as the application related to the supply of the copy of the judgment, it was clearly in time. No copy of the judgment was furnished it would seem, because there had not been deposited in the Court by the applicant the full proportion of the stamp duty payable by him. Even so, that was no reason why he should not have been supplied with a copy of the judgment. In the absence of the copy of the final decree being included in the application, he was entitled to the copy of the judgment, and the inclusion of the copy of the decree did not in any way affect his right to have a copy of the judgment. The postponement of the furnishing of the full amount of the stamp paper is stated by him to be on account of the Court not directing the value of the stamp paper required from the applicant. In fact, the Court did not direct the proportions which the parties each had to bear out of the total amount for the stamp paper. It is clear from Section 29(g) of the Stamp Act that it is the duty of the Court, in respect of a decree for partition, to direct the proportion of stamp to be borne by each party. That was not done in this case. It has been stated that it never is done. If that is so, it is time that the provisions of the statute should be commenced to be observed. There was no delay to be excused and the appeal has been filed within the statutory limitation period.