MOHAMMAD IQBAL Versus HAJIRA BEGUM

The petitioner in this Constitutional petition has called into question the order dated 2‑3‑1982 whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner to challened the eviction order dated 10‑12‑1981. The appeal was filed by affixing court‑fee of Rs. 15 only on 6‑1‑1982. It was conceded before the learned appellate Court that the court‑fee was payable on Rs.2,400 as the monthly rent of the premises in dispute was Rs.. 200. This position is not controverted even before me.

2. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner disclosed in this Constitutional petition is that the learned Additional District Judge was not right in observing that on previous dates arguments on the question of deficient court fee were addressed by the learned counsel of the parties and that the details mentioned in the impugned order in this respect find no mention in the orders passed on 11‑2‑1982 and 23‑2‑1982. It is true that details which find their mention in the order dated 2‑3‑1982 have not been mentioned in the earlier two orders but in the said orders it was noted that the arguments will be heard on the question raised including the objections regarding court‑fee on appeal. The omission to note the pleas in detail in the two orders would not render the impugned order ill al or without jurisdiction. The fact remains that the appeal was filed with defendant court‑fee and despite ~ the objection raised by Lie other side the petitioner did not care to make up the deficiency or even to make a request for extension of time and for making good the deficiency. Under law it is duty of the litigant to pay proper court‑fee within the period of limitation. An appeal filed without proper court‑fee is no appeal in the eye of law and as the deficiency was sot made good during the period of limitation, the appeal was as such rightly dismissed as barred by time. It is apparent from ~ above, that no jurisdictional error was committed by the learned appellate Court in dismissing the appeal as barred by time on account of non‑payment of proper court‑fee. This petition therefore, has no merit and the same is dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage seeks time for vacating the house in dispute. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the. respondent‑landlord is prepared to grant time provided the petitioner undertakes to deliver vacant possession voluntarily and without any further objection. This is accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, granted four months, tune to deliver the vacant possession. Of course rent for these four months will be deposited with the Rent Controller. The petition is dismissed without any order as to cost.

M.Y.M./2626/L Writ refused.