Court No. - 59
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1310 of 2019 Petitioner :- Indra Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Farrukhabad in Case No.107/74/15 (Indra Pal Vs. Bhagawat Dayal) and order dated 03.12.2018 passe by the First Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad, dismissing the Civil Revision No.39 of 2016 (Indra Pal Singh Vs. Bhagawat Dayal Pathak).
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed a Suit No.66/70 of 1995 (Indra Pal Singh Vs. Bhagawat Dayal) without depositing the court fees. The Munsarim reported the deficiency of court fees. The plaintiff was required to deposit the court fees by order dated 22.04.1995, 22.05.1995, 31.07.1995, 08.08.1995 and 30.10.1995. Counsel for the plaintiff sought time for depositing the court fees. On 01.11.1995 court fees of Rs.1,036/- was filed. Still there remained deficiency of court fees of Rs.2,120/- which was not deposited by the plaintiff, despite number of opportunities granted by the trial court on the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff. On 17.04.1997, the plaintiff deposited court fees of Rs.400/- and sought further time to file balance amount of court fees. Number of opportunities was again afforded to the plaintiff by the trail court on the applications moved by the plaintiff but he did not deposit the balance amount of court fees. Consequently, on 31.07.1998, the suit was dismissed observing that sufficient time has already been granted to make good the deficiency of court fees and as such the suit is dismissed for non prosecution. After about 17 years, the plaintiff/petitioner filed a restoration application in the year 2015, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Farrukhabad. Aggrieved with the said order, the plaintiff filed a Civil Revision No.39 of 2016, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 03.12.2018.
Perusal of the order sheet as well as the findings recorded in the impugned orders shows that the plaintiff was negligent and he deliberately failed to deposit the required court fees and as such the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. He could not submit any acceptable explanation for long delay of 17 years in filing the restoration application. Consequently, dismissal of the restoration application and dismissal of Civil Revision by the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of law.
In view of aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this petition, consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Atul