Court fee deficiency on amended plaint can be cured at appellate stage; supervisory interference was unjustified.

Deficiency in court fee on an amended plaint could be made good at the appellate stage where no prior order had fixed time for curing the shortfall after amendment. The appellate court was entitled to grant an opportunity to pay the deficit because an appeal is a continuation of the suit and its power is co-extensive with that of the trial court; the appellate court could also require payment of additional court fee. The Supreme Court held that the High Court, in supervisory jurisdiction, erred in interfering with an order that allowed the deficit to be cured and furthered justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether deficiency in court fee on an amended plaint could be made good at the appellate stage and whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 227 with the first appellate court's order permitting payment of the deficit fee.

Analysis: The provisions governing court fee require the court to determine sufficiency of fee and, where deficiency is found, to permit it to be made good within time fixed by the court. In the present matter, no specific order had been passed by the trial court directing the plaintiffs to cure the deficiency within a stipulated time after amendment of the plaint. The appellate court therefore had jurisdiction to grant an opportunity to make up the deficit, especially because an appeal is a continuation of the suit and the power of the appellate court is co-extensive with that of the trial court. The provision dealing with court-fee questions at the appellate stage also empowered the appellate court to require payment of additional fee. The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, overlooked these principles and interfered with an order that advanced justice.

Conclusion: The deficit court fee could be permitted to be made good at the appellate stage, and the High Court was not justified in setting aside the appellate court's order.

---