Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh vs M/S Deva Singh Mukesh Kumar on 29 July, 2022
202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
CR-670-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 29.07.2022
Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner
versus
M/s Deva Singh Mukesh Kumar ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.05.2019 whereby
the appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner has been dismissed for want of
affixation of court fees.
Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend
that the defendant-petitioner was not in a position to pay the court fees,
however, he is now ready to comply with the order dated 30.04.2019. It is
further the contention that irreparable loss and injustice would be caused to
the defendant-petitioner in case the present petition is not allowed inasmuch
as a valuable right of first appeal would be taken away from him.
Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has
vehemently contended that vide order dated 30.04.2019, the defendant-
petitioner was granted time to affix the ad valorem court fees and was
directed to deposit the decretal amount/security. However, both the orders
TRIPTI SAINI
2022.08.01 11:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CR-670-2020 (O&M) -2-
were not complied with. It is further the contention that order dated
30.04.2019 has attained finality inasmuch as the same has not been
challenged till date.
Heard.
In the present case the suit has been filed for recovery of
Rs.4,58,200/- along with interest on the basis of Bahi entries. The suit was
decreed on 06.08.2018. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree an
appeal was preferred by the defendant-petitioner. An application was filed
by the plaintiff-respondent for rejection of the appeal on the ground that ad
valorem court fees had not been affixed. Vide order dated 30.04.2019 time
was granted to the defendant-petitioner for affixing the requisite court fees
as well as for depositing the decretal amount/security. The defendant-
petitioner failed to affix the court fees and an oral request was made for
extension of time for affixing the court fees. However, vide the impugned
order dated 30.05.2019 the said request was declined and the appeal was
rejected on the ground that ad valorem court fees was not affixed.
Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has now made a
statement that the defendant-petitioner is ready to comply with the order
dated 30.04.2019.
In view of the above, and to do complete justice between the
parties, the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 is set aside and the defendant-
petitioner is granted three months time from today to comply with order
dated 30.04.2019. It is made clear that in case of non-compliance, the
present petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.
TRIPTI SAINI
2022.08.01 11:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CR-670-2020 (O&M) -3-
Disposed off. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
off.
July 29, 2022 (ALKA SARIN)
tripti JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : YES/NO
TRIPTI SAINI
2022.08.01 11:31
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
