1. This is an application forspecial leave to appeal against an order of theTribunal of the Development Board of Kanpur.Along with the application for special leavememorandum of appeal was also field but on acourt fee stamp of Rs. 3-12 only. The StampReporter reported that the court fee on thememorandum of appeal was insufficient byRs. 878.2-0, according to the valuation 'if specialleave to appeal is granted by the Court.'
2. We granted special leave to appeal to theapplicant on 30.10-1950. After we had granted theleave, Mr. S. N. Sahai, learned counsel for theappellant, prayed that time may be given to himfor making good the deficiency on the memorandumof appeal. In view of the recent Full Benchdecision of this Court, In the matter of the applicationof Wajid Ali v. Isar Bano, (A. I. R. (38)1951 ALL. 64 F. B.), we thought that the applicantshould give sufficient reasons why he did notfile the memorandum of appeal with sufficientcourt-fee stamps. Learned counsel asked for timeand the case was adjourned for to-day.
3. Learned counsel has drawn our attentionto an order in F. A. No. 445 of 1946, passed by theHon'ble Iqbal Ahmad C. J. In that case also,which was similar to present one, an applicationfor special leave to appeal was asked for and itwas prayed that the appellant be allowed to makegood the deficiency of court-fee on the memorandumof appeal after the application for specialleave to appeal had been decided. His Lordshipobserved as follows:
is stated by Mr. Gajadhar Prasad Bhargava thatalong with the memorandum of appeal he filed an applicationfor leave to appeal in this Court. He states that inthe event of the leave being refused, this appeal willbecome infructuous and he, therefore, prays that he'should not be called upon to make good the deficiencyin court-fees till the application for leave has beengranted. I consider the prayer to be reasonable andaccordingly I direct that this report about the deficiencyin court-fees, should be put up for orders before the Courtafter the disposal of the application for leave to appeal inthis Court.'
4. We have no hesitation in endorsing theobservations made by the learned Chief Justice. Inour opinion when a memorandum of appeal is filedalong with an application for special leave toappeal and the memorandum can be consideredonly after the application for special leave toappeal has been decided, it is proper that thequestion of deficiency in court-fee should be consideredafter the special leave for appeal has beengranted. In such a case reasonable time may begranted to the appellant to make good the deficiencyafter the application has been granted. Thereason is that the appellant himself is not expectedto be present on the date of hearing of theapplication for special leave to appeal, and thecounsel concerned should have time to communicatewith his client in order that deficiencyin court-fee may be made good.
5. We, therefore, grant six weeks' time to theappellant to make good the deficiency.