IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1728 of 2009 (M/S) [ Smt. Sneh Lata Devi W/o Sri Vijaypal D/o late Ashanand R/o Friends Colony, Gali No. 3, Kalka, Haryana. ...…………. Petitioner / appellant / plaintiff No. 2. Versus 1. Smt. Janak W/o Sh. Jugal Kishore 2. Smt. Vimla Rani W/o Sh. Prahlad Kumar 3. Smt. Bina Rani W/o Sh. Hari Kishan 4. Jugal Kishore S/o late Ashanand 5. Hari Kishan S/o late Ashanand 6. Prahlad Kumar S/o late Ashanand All R/o Pahari Bazar Kankhal, Pargana Jwalapur, Haridwar. 7. Smt. Satya Devi W/o Sh. Prithvi Raj R/o Pahari Bazar Kankhal, Pargana Jwalapur, Haridwar. ...………… Respondents / Defendants Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.C. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for respondents No. 4, 5 & 6. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 22.08.2009, passed by the District Judge, Haridwar, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 08 of 2009; Smt. Sneh Lata Devi Vs. Smt. Janak and others, whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is dismissed. 2 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that Civil Suit No. 324 of 2002; Smt. Sayta Devi and others Vs. Smt. Janak and others, was instituted by the petitioner and her sister Satya Devi, for cancellation of a lease deed, which was valued at Rs. 25,000/-. The trial court after obtaining report from the Amin Commissioner assessed the valuation of the property at Rs. 25,11,215/-. Accordingly, issue No. 2 was decided by the trial court vide order dated 16.03.2005. Said finding was challenged before this Court by the plaintiff and her sister respondent No. 7, by filing Writ Petition No. 722 (M/S) of 2006, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2007. By said order, this Court opined that since the order passed by the trial court was appealable under Section 6A of Court Fees Act, 1870, as such, the writ petition was not maintainable. It appears that one of the plaintiffs (present petitioner) filed appeal before the appellate court only in the year 2009, along with delay condonation application. By the impugned order dated 22.08.2009, the appellate court (District Judge, Haridwar) found that the delay in moving before the wrong forum (this Court in its writ jurisdiction) under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was condonable, but the appellate court found that there was no sufficient explanation for not filing the appeal since 29.08.2007 till 09.01.2009, as such, the delay condonation application was rejected. 3 4) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the appellate court in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as there was no sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, between September 2007 and December 2008. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the appellate court. As far as the liability to pay court fees at 1/5 of the valuation of the subject matter is concerned, as provided under Clause (2) of sub-clause (iv-A) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiffs are at liberty to make the payment in accordance with law as the order passed by the trial court simply relates to the valuation of the property and it doesn’t say that the plaintiffs have to pay full court fee on the entire valuation of the subject matter. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has pleaded that she was not a party to the instrument (lease deed) which was sought to be cancelled. 5) With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 8812 of 2009 also stands disposed of). [ (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. October 13, 2009. H. Negi