WITH TOKEN COURT FEE - NOT PROPER PRESENTATION OF CASE = whether the appellants are entitled to file an appeal on such a nominal and tentative token court fee of Rs.100/- when the actual Court fee comes to Rs.41,626/-?= Earlier when a somewhat similar case came up before this Court in A.S.M.P.No.1468 of 2010 in A.S.S.R.No.4881 of 2008, dated 21-12-2010, this Court, following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court and other several decisions as cited therein viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada v. T. Laxminarayana[1], Dr. D. Satyanarayana Raju v. State Bank of India[2] , Mohammad Mahibulla v. Seth Chaman Lal[3], Mannan Lal v. Mst. Chhotaka Bibi[4] and Nalluri Singaiah v. Bandlapati Kishore Babu[5], did not find favour with the petitioner since it has been held therein that such presentation of appeal with a token court fee would amount to non-presentation at all and consequently the said applications were dismissed. The issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the issue involved in the above case as there also token court fee of Rs.10/- was paid, whereas the deficit court fee comes to Rs.46,426/-. The petitioner has not shown any valid reason for such non-payment. It dehors the consideration of proper presentation of the appeal admitting that there is no presentation at all in the eye of law. 5. Following principles laid down therein and in the aforesaid decisions, referred to above, we do not see any justification to grant indulgence in favour of the petitioner. As such, all the petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is rejected.

ASSR 11260 / 2010

ASSR 11260 / 2010
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
THE A.P.E.P.D.C.LTD & 2 ORS  VSSMT.DASAR SARASWATHI REDDY
PET.ADV. : JYOTHI ESWAR GOGINENIRESP.ADV. : GP FOR ARBITRATION
SUBJECT: MONEY SUITSDISTRICT:  VISAKHAPATNAM

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
&
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD

ASMP Nos.118, 132 of 2011, A.S.M.P.S.R.Nos.554, 556 and 809 of  2011 in AS (SR) No.11260 of 2010
&

A.S.(S.R.).No.11260 of 2010

ORDER (Per BPR,J):
            All these applications are filed one after the another by the appellants, who are the defendants in O.S.No.371 of 2004.  The appellant seeks to file the appeal as against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.371 of 2004, dated 25-02-2010 on the file of the II Additional District Juge, Visakhapatnam, decreeing the suit filed for claiming compensation of Rs.1.00 crore towards the injuries sustained due to electrocution.  Avoiding a sum of Rs.25,59,711/- in a suit claim which has been made for about one crore.  The decree was passed on 25-02-2010 by the Court below.  Whereas, the present appeal has been filed on 20-09-2010.  Curiously, the appeal has been filed on payment of tentative court fee of R.100/- whereas the memorandum of grounds which has been filed along with the appeal itself gives the particulars of valuation of Rs.25,59,711/- towards the suit amount, and Rs.12,46,992/- towards interest and Rs.1,05,278/- towards costs.  Total costs of the Court Fee also shown as per the very memorandum of grounds comes to Rs.41,626/-.  Since the proper Court fee was not paid, the papers were returned by the office.  Meanwhile, the appellants filed A.S.M.P.S.R.No.554 of 2011 seeking interim stay of all further proceedings and A.S.M.P.No.118 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay of 129 days paying deficit court fee of Rs.41,526/- and subsequently matters were adjourned.  Further, the appellants have also conveniently filed three more applications; A.S.M.P.No.132 of 2011 to grant leave to convert A.S.S.R.No.11260 of 2010, dated 20-09-2010 as fresh appeal, A.S.M.P.S.R.No.809 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay of 129 days in filing the appeal against the decree dated 25-02-2010 in O.S.No.371 of 2004 and A.S.M.P.S.R.No.556 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay of 129 days in representing the appeal
2.      After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants ultimately the question falls for consideration is as to 
whether the appellants are entitled to file an appeal on such a nominal and tentative token court fee of Rs.100/- when the actual Court fee comes to Rs.41,626/-?
3.      Earlier when a somewhat similar case came up before this Court in A.S.M.P.No.1468 of 2010 in A.S.S.R.No.4881 of 2008, dated 21-12-2010, this Court, following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court and other several decisions as cited therein viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada v. T. Laxminarayana[1], Dr. D. Satyanarayana Raju v. State Bank of India[2] , Mohammad Mahibulla v. Seth Chaman Lal[3], Mannan Lal v. Mst. Chhotaka Bibi[4] and Nalluri Singaiah v. Bandlapati Kishore Babu[5], did not find favour with the petitioner since it has been held therein that such presentation of appeal with a token court fee would amount to non-presentation at all and consequently the said applications were dismissed.
4.      The issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the issue involved in the above case as there also token court fee of Rs.10/- was paid, whereas the deficit court fee comes to Rs.46,426/-.  The petitioner has not shown any valid reason for such non-payment.  It dehors the consideration of proper presentation of the appeal admitting that there is no presentation at all in the eye of law.
5.      Following principles laid down therein and in the aforesaid decisions, referred to above, we do not see any justification to grant indulgence in favour of the petitioner. As such, all the petitions are dismissed.  Consequently, the appeal is rejected.


_______________________
 JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
Date:  31st January 2011
_________________________
         JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD
kvr


[1] AIR 1975 AP 109
[2] 1986(1) APLJ-SN.99
[3] (1991) 4 SCC 529
[4] 1970(1) SCC 769
[5] 2006-ALT-4-557

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.