AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 198 wordsRowland, J.—This second appeal by the defendant is against a decision of the District Judge summarily rejecting his memorandum of appeal as being insufficiently stamped and thereafter refusing to restore the appeal. The office on presentation of the memorandum of appeal pointed out that the court-fee was deficient by Rupees 141-8-0.
The District Judge should then have called on the appellant to make good the deficiency within a stated time: vide Order 7, Rule 11, Clause (c), Civil P.C., which u/s 107 of the Code has been held applicable to appeals. Tailing an opportunity to the appellant either to explain or to make good the questioned court-fee, the District Judge''s order summarily rejecting the memorandum cannot be supported: vide Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Umeshwar Singh A.I.R (1937) Pat. 550 and Ram Sawari Kuer v. Motiraj Kuer A.I.R (1939) Pat. 83.
I would allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Judge and remand the appeal to him for disposal according to law after fixing a date within which the appellant is to make good the deficit court-fees. The respondents not having appeared, there will be no order for costs.
Harries C. J.
I agree.