Skip to content


In Re: Risal Singh and ors. Vs. Balwant Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.194
AppellantIn Re: Risal Singh and ors.
RespondentBalwant Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
allahabad high court rules, ch. xvi, rule 22 - payment of fee--affidavit--payment by cheque of third person, if sufficient--civil procedure code (act. v of 1908), sections 151 and 152--appeal to privy council--decree, if amended. - .....the payment, and that such an affidavit is absent. there is an affidavit on the file in which the agent of the party states that the payment was made and how, it was made. in this affidavit it is stated that the payment was made by means of a cheque of dr. suresh chander banerji. the natural inference to be drawn from the words of the affidavit is that the agent who made the affidavit got the cheque and brought it to the pleader. this, it seems to us, is a sufficient compliance with the rule. there is, however, a further objection to the present application, namely, that the application is made after the decree has been signed and sealed. in effect we are asked to amend a decree which is now the subject-matter of an appeal to the privy council. we think that the application is without.....
Judgment:

1. In this application the applicant seeks in effect that the decree, of this Court should now be amended by disallowing a certain sum for costs, on., the ground that the payment of the fee was not authenticated in the manner provided by Rule 22, Chapter XVI, of the High: Court's Rules. It is alleged that it was necessary that there should be an affidavit made by 'the party' or his agent, which ever of them made the payment, and that such an affidavit is absent. There is an affidavit on the file in which the agent of the party states that the payment was made and how, it was made. In this affidavit it is stated that the payment was made by means of a cheque of Dr. Suresh Chander Banerji. The natural inference to be drawn from the words of the affidavit is that the agent who made the affidavit got the cheque and brought it to the Pleader. This, it seems to us, is a sufficient compliance with the rule. There is, however, a further objection to the present application, namely, that the application is made after the decree has been signed and sealed. In effect we are asked to amend a decree which is now the subject-matter of an appeal to the Privy Council. We think that the application is without force and should be rejected. We order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //