1967 (9) TMI 157 - HC - Indian Laws

Court extends payment deadline, deems appeal timely filed under Section 149 CPC. Emphasizes timely compliance.

Union of India, Delhi Versus Roshan Lal And Anr.

Union of India, Delhi Versus Roshan Lal And Anr. - TMI Issues:- Timeliness of appeal presentation and extension of time for court-fee paymentAnalysis:1. The main issue in this case was whether the appeal was presented within the prescribed time limit and if the delay in court-fee payment should be condoned. The appeal was presented on the 89th day from the date of the judgment and decree, with a deficiency in court-fee. An application was made to extend the time for paying the full court-fee, citing delays in obtaining the necessary funds due to official routine.2. The Court examined the discretion granted under Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that it should generally be exercised in favor of the litigant unless there are reasons like contumacy or mala fides. The delay in this case was attributed to administrative delays in obtaining the required court-fee, and there was no evidence of mala fides on the part of the appellant. The Court noted that had the court-fee been paid on 16-1-1967, the appeal would have been within the time limit.3. The respondents argued that the appeal should not be considered due to the delay and improper court-fee payment. However, the Court held that the discretion to allow the litigant to pay the required court-fee later should be exercised judiciously, considering all relevant factors. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted the liberal approach of the law in granting time to rectify deficiencies in court-fee payment.4. The Court addressed the lack of material supporting the claim of a rush in obtaining the court-fee on 16-1-1967. It emphasized the importance of Government departments being diligent in ensuring timely payment of court-fees to avoid delays in presenting appeals. The Court underscored the responsibility of public servants to act as trustees for public interest and avoid habitual delays in court-fee payments.5. Ultimately, the Court extended the time for payment of the full court-fee and deemed the appeal to have been presented within the limitation period. The Court cautioned against routine reliance on Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code by Government departments to cover up delays in court-fee payments, emphasizing the need for timely compliance with court procedures.6. In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of extending the time for court-fee payment and presenting the appeal within the limitation period, with no order as to costs in the hearing. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely compliance with court procedures and the responsible conduct expected from Government departments in legal matters.