Dismissed¶7

Suresh Meher v. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Khurda

Orissa HC6 Aug 2024LAA/16/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deficit court fee; enlargement of time refused; Section 149 C.P.C.; Rs.93,572.25/- unpaid deficit Court Fee; Rs.12/- paid; L.A.A. No.16 of 2022; I.A. No.58 of 2023; judgment dated 25.02.2022 in L.A. Case No.77 of 2021 challenged; appeal presented 16.05.2022; I.A. filed 21.03.2023; Suresh Meher; Land Acquisition Zone, Respondent Officer, Bolangir; proxy counsel S. Das for S. K. Nanda; B. Panigrahi ASC; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; order dated 06.08.2024; S. K. Mishra; I.A. and appeal dismissed for non-payment of court fee.

What did the court decide?

In view of the foregoing, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the time for filing of the requisite deficit Court Fee, as pointed out by the Office. ¶6

Suresh Meher Vs Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Khurda — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK L.A.A. No.16 of 2022

¶2

Suresh Meher

¶3

Appellant

¶4

Ms. S. Das, Proxy Counsel

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Land Acquisition Zone …. Respondent Officer, Bolangir

¶7

Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

06.08.2024

Order No.

05.

L.A.A. No.16 of 2022 &

¶14

I.A. No.58 of 2023

¶15

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

2. Though this Appeal was presented on 16.05.2022 challenging judgment dated 25.02.2022 passed in L.A. Case No.77 of 2021, neither the Court Fee was paid in the Memorandum of Appeal nor application was filed under Section 149 C.P.C. praying for time to pay the deficit Court Fee and only an amount of Rs.12/- was paid towards Court Fee.

¶17

3. As pointed out by the Office, the deficit Court Fee is Rs.93,572.25/-.

¶18

4. This I.A. has been filed much after presenting the Memorandum of Appeal i.e. on 21.03.2023, to enlarge the time for filing of the requisite Court Fee without indicating therein as to how much further time the Appellant/ Petitioner wants to deposit the Court Fee. In the application for enlarging time for deposit of Court Fee, it has been indicated that the Appellant filed the Appeal within 60 days from the

¶19

date of knowledge i.e. receiving of the free copy and hence, he could not arrange the requisite Court Fee within a short span and the Appeal was filed without the requisite Court Fee. It has not been indicated in the application as to why the Appellant could not deposit the deficit Court Fee thereafter till filing of the present I.A. on 21.03.2023. Further no cogent reason has been assigned in the I.A. seeking for extension of time to deposit the deficit Court Fee.

¶20

5. Today also, when the I.A. is taken up, Ms. S. Das, learned Proxy Counsel on behalf of Mr. S. K. Nanda, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits, the Appellant could not be contacted to take instruction as to by what time he would be able to deposit the deficit Court Fee.

¶21

6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the time for filing of requisite deficit Court Fee, as pointed out by the Office. 7. Since no cogent reason has been assigned in the application and the learned Counsel is also unable to take instruction as to by what time the Appellant would be able to pay the deficit Court Fee and the I.A. has been filed long after filing of the Appeal and till date no Court Fee has been paid, the I.A. stands dismissed. As a consequence thereof the Appeal also stands dismissed.

(S. K. Mishra)

Mona

Judge

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Odisha Date: 07-Aug-2024 17:19:18

¶27

Page 2 of 2