The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging a docket order granting only two days to pay a deficit court fee. The Court found the time granted too short, set aside the impugned order, and directed the petitioner to pay the fee within two weeks.
Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to pay deficit court fee within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH (19TH ) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
Present:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
Civil Revision Petition No.1322 of 2009
Between:
Telukutla Chinnapareddy
… Petitioner
And:
Nagepogu Benjimen
… Respondent
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
Civil Revision Petition No.1322 of 2009
ORDER:
This revision is directed against the docket order dated 22.01.2009 in IA No.58 of 2009 in un-numbered OS of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, wherein the said application filed under Section 149 CPC seeking one month time for payment of deficit court fee was allowed granting only two days time with a condition that failing compliance, the plaint will be rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent, though served with notice. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner herein filed suit for recovery of money due under a pronote said to have been executed by the respondent. Along with the plaint, he filed IA No.58 of 2009 under Section 149
CPC seeking one month time for payment of deficit court fee. The trial Court granted only two days time i.e., till 24.01.2009 with a rider that in default, the plaint will be rejected. It is not known whether any further orders of rejection of plaint were passed or not.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if the plaint is rejected in consequence of non-compliance with the order dated 22.01.2009, the same would automatically get restored when once the impugned order is set aside. In that connection, he relied upon the decision of this Court in ‘V.Haritha vs. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd.,[1] ’ wherein it was held that ‘when once the delay is condoned and the application is allowed, the consequential rejection order passed in the other application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC will not survive and will stand automatically cancelled notwithstanding the fact that no appeal has been filed as against that order.’
5. He also relied upon another decision in ‘Lakshmi Manohar Saraswathi vs. Kantipudi Ramakrishna[2] ’ wherein this court held that ‘when the decree is consequent upon the order granting or refusing leave and when the said order is set aside, the consequential order even if it is a decree cannot survive’. In the said decision, a reference was made to the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in ‘S.K.Bharodwaj v. M.L.Gupta’ (AIR 1977 Delhi 226) wherein it was held that ‘if the order refusing leave is reversed or modified, the consequential order or decree will have to be modified and directions will have to be given that the same is of no effect’. The Delhi High Court in its turn relied upon the decision of this Court in ‘Rangaiah v. Peddireddi’ (AIR 1957 AP 330) wherein it was held that ‘it is well settled principle of law that certain orders and decrees which are
subordinate and dependent upon earlier orders and decrees could only remain in force so long as the order or decree on which they were dependent are not reversed or superseded’
6. In the present case, the question as to whether or not the plaint would revive does not arise for consideration, as no order rejecting the plaint is placed before the court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the time granted by the trial Court i.e., 2 days for payment of deficit court fee is too short, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner-plaintiff is directed to pay the deficit court fee within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
__________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
Date: 19.07.2011 bss
[1] 2004(2) ALD 817 [2] 1981(2) APLJ 412
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the grant of only two days time for payment of deficit court fee by the trial court was reasonable.
Whether to set aside the impugned order granting only two days time for payment of deficit court fee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.Haritha vs. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd.Relied on¶19
V.Haritha vs. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., 2004(2) ALD 817
Lakshmi Manohar Saraswathi vs. Kantipudi RamakrishnaRelied on¶19
Lakshmi Manohar Saraswathi vs. Kantipudi Ramakrishna, 1981(2) APLJ 412
S.K.Bharodwaj v. M.L.GuptaReferred¶19
S.K.Bharodwaj v. M.L.Gupta (AIR 1977 Delhi 226) · Who else cites this
Rangaiah v. PeddireddiReferred¶20
Rangaiah v. Peddireddi (AIR 1957 AP 330) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Telukutla Chinnapareddy
Nagepogu Benjimen
G.V.Seethapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
