| ASSR 11260 / 2010 | ASSR 11260 / 2010 |
|
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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.