Appeal No1290 of 1979
From the Judgment and Order dated 1681977 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No 1001 of 1966
Dhruv Mehta and SK Mehta NP for the Appellants
JD Jain for the Respondent
The following Order of the Court was delivered This is an appeal by special leave by the plaintiff Wakf Board
Its suit for declaration of the right to the passage and possession thereof having been dismissed by the Trial Court a title appeal was filed before the District Judge of Karnal
By an exemption notification on the plaint in a suit of this type filed by the Wakf Board court fee of Rs 15 is payable
On its memorandum of appeal the plain tiff had paid the same amount of court fee also
Objection was raised to sufficiency of court fee and respondents asked for dismissal of the memorandum of appeal as it had not been sufficiently stamped
As a fact while court fee of Rs 638 was payable court fee of Rs 15 had been paid
This matter was preliminarily considered by the appellate court and by the order dated 551966 the Additional District Judge sustained the objection and directed the memorandum of appeal to be dismissed
The High Court did not interfere when plaintiff took the matter before it
Ultimately special leave had been granted by this court and at the time of grant of leave the following order was made As the petitioner is willing to pay deficit court fee on the memo of appeal before the District Judge without prejudice we direct the issue of show cause notice to the other side It is unfortunate that even when that order was made on 27111978 this matter is coming for final disposal almost 13 years thereafter
The plea raised by the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge that the appeal was a continuation of the suit and the same 181 Court fee as was payable on the plaint was appropriate in appeal had been rightly negatived
At the trial stage there was an exemption and since it was specifically confined to the trial stage there was no ground to claim the benefit at the appellate stage also
But when the learned Additional District Judge came to hold that the memorandum of appeal had not been sufficiently stamped instead of outright dismissing the memorandum of appeal an opportunity should have been given and the appellant should have been called upon to make good the deficiency
Under the provisions of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure which applies to suits when the plaint does not bear appropriate court fee this is the requirement of the law
Section 107 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides 2 Subject as aforesaid the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein
 Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides Where the whole or any part of any fee pre scribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to court fees has not been paid the court may in its discre tion at any stage allow the person by whom such fee is payable to pay the whole or part as the case may be of such court fee and upon such payment the document in respect of which such fee is payable shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance
 Reading these two provisions together and keeping fair ness of procedure in view we are inclined to agree with the counsel for the appellant that when the lower Appellate Court came to hold that the memorandum of appeal had not been sufficiently stamped an opportunity should have been given by the Court to the appellant to make good the balance courtfee within a time to be indicated and if there was failure to comply with the direction of the Court the memo randum of appeal could have been dismissed
This opportunity having not been given we are of the view that the dismissal of the appeal was not appropriate
Counsel for the appellant has undertaken to pay the deficit court fee as was payable on the memorandum of appeal when the appeal was filed within four weeks hence
In case the amount of court fee is so paid the 182 rifle appeal shah be revived to be dealt with in accordance with law
If there be failure to do so the order of dis missal shah stand sustained
We are inclined to agree with counsel for the respond ents that this is a case of negligence on the part of the appellants and therefore the respondents who have been dragged in these proceedings for about 10 years should be compensated
We direct that the restoration of the appeal in the appellate court on payment of appropriate court fee shall be subject to the further condition of payment by way of costs of Rs 1000
The appeal is disposed of accordingly
VPR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant an Ex Treasurer of a Co operative Society was said to have defalcated a sum of Rs 9579054 and for recovery thereof proceedings were initiated under section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co operative Societies Act 1935 with interest accrued thereon of Rs 2555 as on December 30 1976
The Registrar referred the matter to the Asstt
Regis trar who on enquiry and having given the opportunity to the appellant passed an award against which appeal was filed
The Deputy Registrar allowed the appeal on the ground that the appellant was surcharged
On revision the first respondent set aside the appel late order and confirmed the award with a further direction to pay interest till date of recovery
The appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed in limine by the High Court against which this appeal by special leave
The appellant contended that the Registrar had no revi sional 144 jurisdiction under Section 56 since the award of the Asstt
Registrar was by the Registrar under the Act acting as Registrar s delegate that surcharge proceedings against the appellant were initiated under Section 40 in which the appellant was found payable of partial amount as against which the society filed an appeal before the Government which was pending and the award amounted to double jeopardy for the same liability and therefore it was illegal
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
A bare reading of the relevant provisions in Section 48 clearly manifests the legislative intention that the Registrar on reference himself may decide the dispute or transfer it for disposal to a person exercising powers of the Registrar in this behalf
If the Registrar himself decides the dispute under Section 483 the question of either appeal or revision to him does not arise except a review
This dichotomy is to be maintained when a revisional power is to be exercised by the Registrar
The power of revision is conferred expressly only either on application or suo moto against any order passed by a person exercis ing the powers of the Registrar
Obviously it refers to the person appointed to assist him under section 62 a of the Act
148G H 149 A 2
The Registrar under section 61 of the Act has his pre eminent supervisory authority over the function and orders of the Registrars appointed under section 62a to assist him in the discharge of the duties or functions under the Act except over his delegate under sub section 4 of section 6
His supervisory or revisional power is to correct all palpable material errors in the orders passed or the action taken by the subordinate officers feeding injustice
Merely because the Asstt
Registrar on reference exercised the powers under subsection 3 of section 48
The Registrar is not denuded of his supervisory or revisional powers under section 56 of the Act
Therefore the Addl
Registrar as delegate of the Registrar is clearly within his power to exercise his revisional power over the appellate order under section 486 of the Act
It is accordingly legal and valid
149 E G 3
The language in section 56 was couched very widely without being hedged with any limitation like the revisional powers under section 115 CPC or the similar language used in sister Acts in some other States
The reason appears to be obvious
The order of the Dy
Registrar by language 145 of sub section 6 ors
48 undoubtedly shall be final
When the legislature gives finality  to an order it is normally not open to revision
But still it must be construed in the light of the scheme of the Act its operation and resultant effect
The language in section 56 is not hedged with any limita tion of the finality in sub section 6 of Section 48
The revisional power under section 56 is independent of the appellate powers under section 486
The latter is amenable to revision by the Registrar
150 D F 4
The proceedings under section 40 are not in substitution of section 48 but are independent of and in addition to the normal civil remedy under section 48
The culpable negligence misconduct misappropriation fraudulent conduct etc
are relevant facts to be established in the proceedings under section 40
But that is not so under section 48
Therefore mere initiation or an order passed under section 40 does not divest the jurisdiction or power of the Registrar under section 48 when it was referred to for a decision of the dispute
Exercise of the jurisdiction to pass an award under section 483 or revision under section 56 does not amount to double jeopardy
151 C D 5
Section 2i of the Act defines Registrar which means a person appointed to perform the duties of Registrar or Co operative Societies under this Act
The State Govern ment may appoint a person to be the Registrar of the Co operative Societies besides Additional Registrar and also appoint persons to assist such Registrar
Under sub section 2a the persons appointed to assist the Registrar are entitled to exercise all or any of the powers of the Regis trar under the Act except under section 26
Sub section 4 of Section 6 gives power to the Registrar to delegate transfer or assign to the Addl
Registrar all the powers including the powers under section 26 and 56 and thereupon the Addl
Regis trar as a delegate of the Registrar is empowered to exercise powers so transferred or assigned or delegated to him
Section 6 thereby makes a clear distinction between the exercise of the powers of the Registrar by the Addl
Regis trar as a delegate of the Registrar and of the Asstt
Registrars or Dy
Registrars appointed to assist the Regis trar empowered as such in the discharge of their functions under the Act
Such assistants are entitled by statutory operation to exercise the powers under the Act conferred by the State Govt
except to the extent expressly excluded by the statute
147 B 148 A B Din Dayal Singh vs The Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd 146  over ruled Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Co op
Society Ltd vs Secretary Food  Agricultural Govt
of Andhra Pradesh   followed
Roop Chand vs State of Punjab 1963 Suppl
1 SCR 539 distinguished