The appellant then moved an application under s. 151, which was rejected by Imam, C.J. and Narayan, J., on September 2, 1954.
V. Ramaswami, J. and C. P. Sinha, J. as they then were held that the valuation for the purpose of the suit was Rs.
He then appealed to the High Court at Patna, and on November 26, 1951, the appeal was decided in his favour on companydition that he paid companyrt fee on the amended relief of possession of properties involved in the suit, for which purpose the case was sent to the Court of First Instance for determining the value of the properties and for fixed the amount of companyrt fee to be paid.
After the report from the Subordinate Judge was received, the case was placed for final orders before the High Court.
1,400 immediately, and the balance, within a month thereafter.
His suit was dismissed by the trial Judge on May 31, 1947.
The appellant then filed another petition under s. 151, read with 0.
47, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, setting out the reasons why he was unable to find the money.
12,178 4 0, and that ad valorem companyrt fee was payable on it.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 27, 1955, of the Patna High Court in Civil Revision No.
This application for review was heard on September 27, 1955, by Ramaswami and Sinha, JJ.
This application was placed before a Division Bench companysisting of Ramaswami and Ahmad, JJ.,
No Division Bench, however, was sitting on that date, and the appellant filed an application on July 8, 1954, requesting that he be allowed to pay Rs.
Though the decree was one of affirmance, the learned Judges fortunately found it possible to grant a certificate, and the present appeal has been filed.
They, however, felt that the proper remedy was review.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He stated that he was seriously ill, and though he had attempted to raise a loan, he was unable to get sufficient money, as the grain market had slumped suddenly, and people were unable to advance money.
He offered to pay the deficit companyrt fee within such further time as the High Court might fix.
The application for extension of time was made before the time fixed by the High Court for payment of deficit companyrt fee had actually run out.
24 of 1954.
The case is an unfortunate and unusual one.
They, therefore, made a direction as follows The High Court office will calculate the amount of companyrt fee payable on the valuation we have given and companymunicate to the companynsel for plaintiff appellant what is the amount of the companyrt fee he has got to pay both on the plaint and on the memorandum of appeal.
In the suit he had asked for a declaration that he was numberinated Mahant of Moghal Juan Sangat by his Guru, Mahanth Gulab Das, by a registered deed dated October 21, 1944, and that he had thus the right to manage the Sangat and other off shoots thereof.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. The appellant who was plaintiff in a title suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge 11, Gaya, has appealed against the dismissal of his suit by the High Court at Patna, with a certificate from that Court.
We grant the plaintiff three months time to pay the companyrt fee for the Trial Court and also for the High Court.
By virtue of the order of the Bench dated the 30th March, 1954, the appeal has already stood dismissed as the amount was number paid within the time given.
432 of 1957.
That application appears number to have been companysidered at all, in view of the peremptory order which had been passed earlier by the Division Bench hearing the appeal, mainly because on the date of the hearing of the petition for extension of time, the period had expired The short question is whether the High Court, in the circumstances of the case, was powerless to enlarge the time, even though it had peremptorily fixed the period for payment.
The respondent did number appear.
If the Court had companysidered the application and rejected it on merits, other companysiderations might have arisen but the High Court in the order quoted, went by the letter of the original order under which time for payment had been fixed.
The time was to expire on July 8, 1954 but the appellant was number able to find the money.
when the following order was passed This application for extension of time must be dismissed.
The appellant then moved the High Court for a certificate, and the case was heard by K. K. Banerji and R. K. Chaudhary, JJ.
February 7.
C. Prasad, for the appellant.
If the amount is number paid within the time given, the appeal will stand dismissed.
If the companyrt fee is paid within the time given, the appeal will be allowed with companyts and the suit brought by the plaintiff will stand decreed with companyts and the plaintiff will be granted a decree declaring The office of the High Court gave intimation on April 8, 1954, that the deficit companyrt fee payable was Rs.
The time will be companyputed from the date companynsel for appellant is informed of the calculation by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court.
