Skip to content


Nasir Mandal and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Ghosh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in51Ind.Cas.154
AppellantNasir Mandal and ors.
RespondentSatish Chandra Ghosh
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order vii, rule 11 (c) - period fixed for payment of deficit court-fee, extension of--court, power of. - 1. we think that this rule must be discharged. the only question is whether the suit was within time. the suit was filed on a bond which was payable on the last day of chait 1321 b.s. (=13th april 1915). the plaint was presented to the court on 15th april 1918, and it appears from the calendar that 13th and 14th april were close holidays. it was, therefore, on the last day of limitation. when presented the plaint was insufficiently stamped. the plaintiff was given three periods in succession of seven days, seven days and five days to put in the deficit court-fee. this he eventually put in on 3rd may 1918 within the last extension of five days granted to him on 29th april, it is suggested that the munsif had no power to extend the time for payment of the deficit court-fee, but it is clear.....
Judgment:

1. We think that this Rule must be discharged. The only question is whether the suit was within time. The suit was filed on a bond which was payable on the last day of Chait 1321 B.S. (=13th April 1915). The plaint was presented to the Court on 15th April 1918, and it appears from the calendar that 13th and 14th April were close holidays. It was, therefore, on the last day of limitation. When presented the plaint was insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff was given three periods in succession of seven days, seven days and five days to put in the deficit Court-fee. This he eventually put in on 3rd May 1918 within the last extension of five days granted to him on 29th April, It is suggested that the Munsif had no power to extend the time for payment of the deficit Court-fee, but it is clear that the Court has such power.That will appear from the wording of Order VII, Rule 11(c), Civil Procedure Code. It has been further suggested that under that rule, the Court had power to extend the period once only, but there is nothing in that rule to justify such a limited interpretation. We think that the suit was within time. The Rule must be discharged with costs, hearing fee one gold mohur.


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