Skip to content


Haripada Mukherjee, Shebait of Kali Mata and anr. Vs. Shaila Bala Devi W/O Kshitra Mohan Banerjee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940Cal530
AppellantHaripada Mukherjee, Shebait of Kali Mata and anr.
RespondentShaila Bala Devi W/O Kshitra Mohan Banerjee
Excerpt:
- .....the memorandum of appeal was rejected. on a later date, namely on 3rd january 1939 the appellant filed an application in which he asked for an extension of time under section 5, limitation act. this application was rejected. the appellant's case in his application was to the effect that orders such as the one passed on 15th december 1938 are ordinarily communicated to the pleaders concerned, but in this case neither the pleader nor his clerk was informed of the order at the time when it was made or when the memorandum of appeal was rejected. having regard to the fact that admittedly the appellant knew at the time when he filed the appeal that a further sum of rs. 50 (rupees fifty only) was due on account of the court, fees it was his business, or the business of any pleader who might.....
Judgment:

Edgley, J.

1. In this case the appellant filed an appeal in the Court of the Districts Judge of Howrah on 14th December 1938. The memorandum of appeal was filed with a court-fee of Rs. 2-14-0 only as part payment in respect of a total court-fee due of Rs. 52-14-0. On 15th December 1938 the learned District Judge recorded an order to the effect that the balance of the court-fees should be paid within three days and he directed that the matter should be put up on 19th December 1938 for orders. On that date the court-fees had not been paid. So the memorandum of appeal was rejected. On a later date, namely on 3rd January 1939 the appellant filed an application in which he asked for an extension of time under Section 5, Limitation Act. This application was rejected. The appellant's case in his application was to the effect that orders such as the one passed on 15th December 1938 are ordinarily communicated to the pleaders concerned, but in this case neither the pleader nor his clerk was informed of the order at the time when it was made or when the memorandum of appeal was rejected. Having regard to the fact that admittedly the appellant knew at the time when he filed the appeal that a further sum of Rs. 50 (rupees fifty only) was due on account of the court, fees it was his business, or the business of any pleader who might have been acting for him in connexion with this matter, to ascertain the date fixed for depositing the deficit court-fees. In a case of this sort it is expected that pleaders shall make themselves acquainted with the nature of the orders passed and it is not the duty of the Court to send records to the pleaders in order that their signatures may be taken on the order sheet.

2. It is suggested by the learned advocate for the appellant in this case that this matter was never entered in the cause list and on this account the pleader had no opportunity of knowing that the case would be put up on 19th December 1938 for orders. If it had been the case for the appellant that this matter was not entered in the cause list, this point should have been specifically taken in the application. In none of the petitions which he filed in connexion with this case did he take this point. In my view this is not a case in which the appellant is entitled to any indulgence under Section 5, Limitation Act, and this appeal is therefore dismissed. I make no order with regard to costs. The application under Section 115, Civil P.C., is not pressed and is therefore rejected without costs.


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