idiil^«»toilk*A»l*«**^"A»s»"iui-'^s'' .•^it<^iiiu*i*mMnt»ltoias^*A>**>«*it*l**M f THE ] ': :1 CIVILREVISION N0. 1. ^^ ..^6 ., .s>^ .-:^v •••'t^ ^vT ^ N.on Agplicant •) ..-^y^ 2. Versus / RaipurDiocese Education Soeiefy Registration No. 5261Christ Bandhu House, Bhawan House, Baroa Bazar tlirough its Director Raipur Diocese Education Society, Bist: Raipur :(C.G.) Widenor M emorial School Rajnandgaou, a School ruti by the applicant no.l Raipur Diocese Education Society. Smt.Aradhana Sharma W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, aged about 38 years, R/o BaSdeo Bagh, Rajnandgaon, Dist: Rajnandgaon- (C.G.) ; | @^M ••" XI-HC-78 ^TSq •^101CSO, U-rfl<(1<l<S, R o)i«y< C ^Nt ^ NO -^IU Int? HW^isE^n^ •••••-•--—l-'^-r-)-——^p(^oo aiT^STtRW (^tj'sl^) ? sii^iwRs'ii* awsntCTaiii* Bi il.i gTOi«Rrt8a3ii^?T f&e 16-09-2005 Shri P. Diwakar, Se| Patankar, Advocate for fhe Shri Anoop Mazumjdar applicant. TIie niatter is finaUy the parties. This Revision is dird' 11-07-2003 passed by Rajnaadgaon in Civil Suit| application uader order-7 Procedure for rejection of ofdeficit Court fees, was di^ Leamed counsel dispute fhis fact that the d4 by fhe plaintiff-aon applica|it, stage. He taainly contend| C.P.C., fhe Coiirt could n4 the period of 30 days aad the plaiat. On the ofb.er t(: •non-applicaut has argued t| of C.P.G. as weU as einpowered, at aay stage ofl bior Advocate with Sbri P.R. ^ppUcants. ]|dar, Counsel for fhe non- lieard with fhe coasent ofboth <t>iottt41i *fi*tnYfffo»clt1ui'«;i'< ^3rf^T3lrt?T ted agaiast the order dated Ist Civil Judge, Class-II, No. 77-A/1998 whereby the tbe fctr Rule-11 ofthe Code ofCivil plaint due to non-payinent itnissed. the applicants does not ficit Court fees had beea paid it, fhough, at a highly belated ;d under section-148 of the it have enlarged tiine beyond was therefore bouud to reject aad, learned counsel for the tiat under order-7 Rule-1 1 (b) ;r Sectiori-149, the Court is fhe suit, to aUow the plaiatiff XI-HC-78 \d-oq'-tii<iiw<4,i»'ifl<{-i'litt,Rni'dyx HIHril^'TT^ 3D^?Tq3^ (ijclfjcl.fi) W^200 B^ITW'Ulid Sn^CT 1--^. at its discretion to pay fh^ iastant case, I find fhat fhe discretion aad upon payiijient ftiough at a belated stage, r ^v^eLt^^-^ ain of the/opinion that fhe A^ -1 lower Court cannot be said no substance in this revisioil Accordingly, this Revi^ion is dismissed. <t>i<i(n41i *)i*i<»T^'fe'i9•(lul't^l'! ^3I^T3II^<T [ deflcit Court Fees. In the [ower Court has exercised its of deficit Court. fees, ^fused to reject the plauit. I discretion exercised by the be iinproper. There is fhus fc Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge