1961 (2) TMI 60 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the dismissal of a suit for a declaration of being nominated Mahant of a Sangat.
2. Dismissal of the suit due to non-payment of court fee within the specified time.
3. Application for extension of time for payment of court fee.
4. Rejection of the application for extension of time and subsequent legal proceedings.
5. Review petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. Consideration of Sections 148 and 149 for extension of time.
7. Analysis of the High Court's powers to enlarge time for payment of court fee.
8. Decision on whether the High Court was in error in not extending the time for payment.
9. Setting aside the earlier orders and granting extension of time for payment of court fee.

Comprehensive Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the dismissal of his suit seeking a declaration as the nominated Mahant of a Sangat. The High Court directed him to pay court fee for possession of properties involved in the suit. The appellant failed to pay the required court fee within the specified time, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Subsequently, he filed an application for extension of time, which was rejected by a Division Bench. The appellant then moved under Section 151 for review, which was also rejected, suggesting the proper remedy was a review petition. Another petition was filed under Section 151, detailing reasons for the delay in payment of court fee, citing illness and financial constraints due to market conditions.

The review petition was heard, where the judges considered various legal provisions, including Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 148 and 149, and inherent powers of the Court. The judges expressed sympathy but emphasized adherence to legal principles. The appellant then sought a certificate from the High Court, which affirmed the decree but granted a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court analyzed the circumstances, noting the application for extension was made before the payment deadline expired. The Court discussed the High Court's powers to extend time, citing Sections 148 and 149 of the Code, emphasizing the need for flexibility in procedural orders to address unforeseen events.

The Supreme Court found errors in the High Court's decisions and set aside the previous orders. The Court granted an extension of two months for payment of the deficit court fee, considering the appellant's circumstances. The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the need for justice and flexibility in addressing litigants' challenges. The Court emphasized the discretionary power of the judiciary to ensure fairness and access to justice, ultimately allowing the appeal and granting additional time for compliance without imposing costs.