T. Manikyam vs T. Naraslmhar

Satyanarayana Raju, J.—The Respondent has not been represented and on my request Mr; M. Krishna Rao agreed to appear as curiae. He has given me the authorities bearing on the subject and has rendered valuable assistance.

The facts which have given rise to this revision petition are briefly these: O. S No is the Plaintiff, was the Petitioner in the petition, filed if application for the copies Decree and/Judgment for preferring an The cope appBcation has been registered as No. 990: On 28-3- 1952, copy application No,, in Q/S. No.148 was notified on the Notice .m amount of Rs. 11-2-9 was called for.

Place counsel who appeared for the Hitch made the copy application is one M Venk Rao. His initials are T. V. It." But 13 Sri T. V. K. R." was shown a advocate for the Plaintiff. The amount not t been furnished within the time granted, copy placation was struck off. On 2-5-1952, the P-filed, C. M. P. 641 of 1952 for restore no the application No 990 which was struck nil on 1952.

3 The mention of Mr. T. V. K.R. advocate for the applicant is a clear the part of the Office. The clerk the I advocate filed an affidavit stating that the IIOJ of the copy stamps within the; time garlic was to the mistaken entry on the Notice Boa/d notwithstanding this, the District Muiwf giving notice to the Defendant, dismissed the cation in limine. It is to revise that of the copy application that this Revision Petition has been filed.

If a fresh application were to he filed] the order of the Dt. Munsif, the appeal be in time. In revision, counsel for the contended that the District Munsif should hansl tored the application to file and that he is ,in rejecting the application in limine.

That the Court has got power to in case where a party is dandified by the en the Court''s officer, u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure, established by the decisions of the Court. In - Sreepathi Balaiah alias Bala Gurumurthy and Another Vs. Darsi Ramayya and Another, , Wadsworth J "where a Court has granted time a payment must be made and. has decdefault of payment within the time proceeding,'','' stand dismissed, there is u/s 148 after the date on which inks would stand dismissed, to extend which the payment was to be made.

But the Court has inherent pouvis a party from being dandified by the was Court''s own loftier and though there

148 to reopen a closed nut''s an extension of time, the Court has puny Section 151 to do that which is necessary In that of Justice in order to set right the own of an unfortunate error committed his of the Court." The same decision is also an authority for is that the High Court'' should not be inclmojj fuse to interfere in revision with such on.

Pandranga Rao J. observed in - Rao v. Gangamma ATR 1934 Mad 506 CS in such a case it is a duty which the Court perform ex debit justified in order to Judicial conscience, and that it will of enabling courts to perform then ditmgencies of this kind, i.e., when had led to injustice, that their preserved intact'' by Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 143, Code of Civil Procedure, respondent of time and reads as follow "Where any period is fixed of Court for the doing of any act this Code, The Court may from time to time, enlarge such peril is The expression Code" has been defined Section 2, Clause (1) as including rules. "Rules" have Mned in Section 2, Clause (18) as meaning rules and contained in Sch. I or made u/s 122 a 5. Section 122 gives to High Courts in , and Part B states to make rules regulating cadre of the Subordinate Courts, & in of the power conferred by Section 122, rules have amed which are cited as the Civil Rules of Rules 127 and 128 provide for an applicant certified copy and the form of the appall Rule 129 provides for notice to provide Imp papers required. That rule ''inter and "that a notice shall be affixed to the Court''s hoard and that the said list shall remain led for three days, or, if the last day shoji the next Court day, and if the required papers have not been deposited by 3 P.. M. fourth day counting that on which the list ceded or, if the fourth, day is a holiday on the next Court day, the application shall icky off.

In the instant case the application had ,ugly filed. Though the number of the apply-'' the suit in, which the application has been have been correctly noled in (ho notice-board ials of the Advocate have not been notified, it may very well be that because of tin''s miss-On the part of the Officer of the Court the our was not able to comply with the notice. therefore the mistake is that of the Court, the should not be prejudiced on account of the of the Court.

This aspect of the matter has not been red by the District Munsif. f think this is case where the order of the District Munsif lie set and he be directed to reentcr-,C, M. 1\\ NoT 541 of 1952 and dispose it of idanee with law after giving notice to the indent and in the light of the observations con-in this order. As the Respondent is not rcpre-there will be no order as to costs.