C.R. No. 3458 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3458 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2010 Rattan Singh. …Petitioner Versus Charan Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff – petitioner filed suit for recovery of Rs.1,70,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt against the defendant – respondent. At the time along with the plaint, the plaintiff – petitioner did not file sufficient court fee. Case was not registered. However, no court fee was paid for long and ultimately, case was dismissed on 17.05.2005 in the absence of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Thereafter, an 1 C.R. No. 3458 of 2010 application was moved by the plaintiff on 29.01.2009 for recalling the order dated 17.05.2005 and for permitting the plaintiff to deposit the deficient court fee on the plaint. Admittedly, suit remained dismissed for almost four years. No court fee was made on the suit when suit was initially filed on 07.05.2004. Undisputedly, on the date fixed i.e. 17.05.2005, neither court fee was paid nor counsel for the plaintiff appeared in the Court and suit was directed to be dismissed, which can also be considered as rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for want of proper court fee despite of several opportunities being granted to the plaintiff – petitioner to make good deficiency of court fee. In my considered opinion, permitting the petitioner after four years to pay the court fee and to contest the suit against the defendant – respondent would not be justified in view of the fact that during the limitation period, court fee was not made good and the plaintiff – petitioner slept over the matter for long four years. No good ground to interfere with the matter. Petition is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. August 17, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2