Skip to content


Gati Vs. Rachla Kunwar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915All310(2); 29Ind.Cas.1003
AppellantGati
RespondentRachla Kunwar and anr.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908) order xliv - appeal in forma pauperis--limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 170--limitation. - - the appellant asked for time to make good the deficiency. time was given to him on several occasions, but he failed to make good the deficiency. finally on the 17th of january 1914 lie fled a petition alleging that he was a pauper, that he was unable to make good the deficiency, that his regular appeal, which was presented within time as such, might be continued as a pauper appeal under order xliv of the code of civil procedure and might be proceeded with according to law. time was repeatedly allowed to the appellant to make good the deficiency but he has failed to make it good......and that there was a corresponding deficiency in the court below. the appellant asked for time to make good the deficiency. time was given to him on several occasions, but he failed to make good the deficiency. finally on the 17th of january 1914 lie fled a petition alleging that he was a pauper, that he was unable to make good the deficiency, that his regular appeal, which was presented within time as such, might be continued as a pauper appeal under order xliv of the code of civil procedure and might be proceeded with according to law. his petition was granted by an er parte order of the 24th march 1914. now it is clear that if the petition of appeal be treated as a petilion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, it ought to have been filed within 30 days of the decision of the court.....
Judgment:

1. The decision of the Court below, against which the present appeal has been preferred, was passed on the 29th of March 1913. On the 30th Jane 1913 the present appeal was filed. The appellant put upon his petition of appeal a Court-fee of Rs. 10. The office reported that there was a considerable deficiency in Court-fees, that the proper fee ought to have been Rs. 475 and that there was a corresponding deficiency in the Court below. The appellant asked for time to make good the deficiency. Time was given to him on several occasions, but he failed to make good the deficiency. Finally on the 17th of January 1914 lie fled a petition alleging that he was a pauper, that he was unable to make good the deficiency, that his regular appeal, which was presented within time as such, might be continued as a pauper appeal under Order XLIV of the Code of Civil Procedure and might be proceeded with according to law. His petition was granted by an er parte order of the 24th March 1914. Now it is clear that if the petition of appeal be treated as a petilion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, it ought to have been filed within 30 days of the decision of the Court below under Article 170 of the Limitation Act. The order of this Court passed on the 24th March 1914, being an ex parte order, is open to objection at the hearing of the appeal and this objection lias now been raised, that the appeal as an appeal in forma pauperis is barred by time. There can be no doubt that it is barred, it having been presented more than three months after the decision of the Court below. On behalf of the appellant we are assured that he cannot pay the deficiency in Court-fees. It is impossible to treat the appeal as an ordinary appeal. Time was repeatedly allowed to the appellant to make good the deficiency but he has failed to make it good. As an appeal in forma pauperis the present appeal is barred by time. We, therefore, dismiss it with costs.


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