Delhi High Court
Smt. Saroopi (Deceased) Through ... vs Smt. Rampati And Ors. on 29 April, 2005
Author: B Patel
Bench: B Patel, S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
B.C. Patel, C.J.
CM No. 6099/2005
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
LPA No. 956/2005 and CM Nos. 6097.6098,and 6100/2005
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 5204/2002 decided on 11,10.2004 The learned single Judge has examined all the aspects of the matter. Despite all sympathies, the learned single Judge could not give any relief to the petitioner in view of the fact that the law is against the petitioner. The learned single Judge has pointed out in para 1 as to how the litigation was dealt with:-
"1. This is an unfortunate case for the petitioner but nothing can be done. Her counsels have let her down. Matter has been prosecuted by counsel for the petitioner in a most negligent and callous manner, bordering culpable negligence."
Again in para 22 the learned single Judge has pointed out as to how the litigant suffered, as under:-
"22. On this sole ground, though unfortunate, petitioner cannot succeed. Misery of the petitioner is further compounded by the fact that the period for execution of the decree, if court fee was paid in the year 1970 would expire by today. Petitioner is an illiterate lady. One would have expected her counsels to have guided her a little better."
2. The claim of the appellant rests on a judgment and decree passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. It would be proper, at this juncture, to refer to the relief granted by the civil court on Issue No. 7 dealing with the relief which reads as under:-
"Accordingly, in view of my discussion above, a decree for declaration is hereby passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that the sale in favor of defendant No. 1 regarding the land as detailed in para 13 of the paint is illegal and void with a consequential relief a decree for possession of the said land is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. However, looking to the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own cost. The deficiency of the court fee is to be made by 7.10.71 failing which the suit shall be treated as dismissed."
3. The appellant has miserably failed to indicate anything about the compliance of the aforesaid order for making up deficiency of court fee and thus, the suit stood dismissed on account of non compliance. Therefore, the appellant having no basis, the Court rightly rejected the suit.
4. That apart, we will point out how the appellant has been assisted in this appeal. There is a delay of 34 days in preferring the appeal. Thereafter, there is a delay of 78 days in refiling the appeal. In the first set it is specifically recorded a 78 days and in the second set it is indicated as 66 days. That is how the matters are dealt with. We find no explanation for refiling the appeal beyond the period. It is required to be noted that if there is an office objection and papers are returned to the appellant, and if the papers are refiled within a week as per the rule, then it is treated as filed within time. Even after refiling if it is returned again and it is once again refiled within a week, it is considered to be within time. In the instant case, after taking the papers they have been refiled after 78 days for which there is no explanation.
5. Hence, we dismiss the appeal and the applications.
