Koilpillai Samban vs Sappanimuthu Samban and Another

Ramesam, J.—Following the decision in Mahomed Akbar zaman Khan v. Sukdeo Pande (1911) 13 C. L. J. 467, and Munna Lal v. Radha

Kishan I.L.R.(1915) All. 591, (the latter of which was cited before the District Munsif but not distinguished or otherwise dealt with by him). I hold

that when the party has applied for a chalan and the delay in issuing the chalan, is the delay of the officer of the Court and after the issue of the

chalan, he deposited the amount immediately, the maxim nunc proptunc applies and the application for chalan (in such circumstances) is equivalent

to the deposit.

Even if excusing delay is necessary, the view of the District Munsif that the High Court by its rules cannot affect. Section 17 of provincial Small

Cause, Courts Act is clearly opposed to Sudalaimuthu Kudumban v. Andi Reddiar I.L.R.(1922) Mad 628. The statement of the District Munsif

that the deposit was not made in time on account of the negligence of the petitioner is opposed to all the facts that appear on the record. Not

mentioning to the office that the chalan. is wanted urgently cannot be regarded as negligence. Therefore even if it were necessary to excuse the

delay, I hold this is a case in which the delay ought to be excused. I reverse the order of the District Munsif and direc him to dispose of the petition

according to law. The Petitioner I reverse the order of the District Munsif and direct him to dispose of the petition acccording to law. The

Petitioner will have the costs of the Revision Petition. Costs in the Lower Court will abide the result.