Smt. Satyawati Yadav(Wrongly ... vs Munnalal Agrawal
2022 Latest Caselaw 3235 Chatt

                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                            Order Sheet

                                             REVP No. 45 of 2022

         Smt. Satyawati Yadav(wrongly Mentioned As Saraswati Yadav) Versus Munnalal Agrawal




04.05.2022

Shri Priyanshu Gupta, counsel for the Petitioner.

Heard on Default No.1.

Registry has raised an objection vide order dated 01.04.2022 that the Court Fee

of Rs.10,500/- is deficit in memo of Review Petition filed on 26.03.2022, as per schedule

1 article 4 of the Courts Fees Act, 1870.

According to the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the period of

limitation is 30 days under article 124 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, from the date of

the Decree or Order for preferring the Review Petition which would begin from the date

of the Decree or Order. It is contended further that although the judgment was delivered

on 17.03.2021, but it was drawn on 28.06.2021, therefore, the period of limitation would

begin from the date when the decree was drawn on 28.06.2021. It is contended further

while referring to the order dated 10.01.2022, passed by the Supreme Court in Suo

Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.03 of 2020 that since the period of limitation has already

been extended from 15.03.2020 upto 28.02.2022, owing to Covid-19 pandemic,

therefore, the Court Fee affixed alongwith the Review Petition is properly paid as the

Review Petition has been held to be filed in time in the light of the said order.

I have heard, learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the order passed by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.03/2020. According to

the aforesaid order, the period of limitation alone has been considered while providing

the benefit of lock down period, but in so far as payment of Court Fee is concerned, the

same has however not been provided therein. In view thereof, I am not inclined to overrule, the Default No.1, as pointed out by the Registry.

At this stage, Shri Gupta, counsel for the Petitioner prays for 2 days time to

remove the said default, as pointed out by the Registry.

As prayed by him, post this matter on 06.05.2022, for further orders.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

vivek