Civil Revision No. 4087 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4087 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.10.2009 Prem Kanta ......Petitioner Versus Jamna Dass and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Shri Kamal Goel, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby, the memo of appeal was rejected as it was found that the proper Court fee has not been affixed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after returning a finding that the memo of appeal was not properly stamped, an opportunity was required to be given to the petitioner to make up the deficiency in payment of the Court fee, but no such opportunity has Civil Revision No. 4087 of 2009 [2] been granted. Therefore, the petitioner seeks reasonable time to make up the deficiency in payment of the Court fee. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Jabar Singh deceased represented by his LRs v. Shadi represented by his LRs, 1978 PLR 681, to contend that the Appellate Court is not bound to grant time to the appellant to make up the deficiency in payment of the Court fee. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the counsel for the respondents. In the present case there was dispute regarding the Court fee liable to be paid by the plaintiff-petitioner. Issue No. 5 was framed to the effect `whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? The said issue was decided against the petitioner by the learned trial Court. Since the petitioner was in appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, including the finding on the aforesaid issue, there was a bona-fide dispute regarding the payment of advalorem Court fee on the memorandum of appeal. Still further learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Mrs. Rama Saini and another v. Gurbax Rai and another, 1998(2) PLJ 633, to contend that the appellant must pay Court fee in terms of the issue decided by the trial Court, on memo of appeal. Since the petitioner has not deposited the advalorem Court fee on the memo of appeal, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to extension in time for Civil Revision No. 4087 of 2009 [3] affixing the proper Court fee. I do not find any merit in the said argument as well. The question whether in appeal, the petitioner was to affix the advalorem Court fee, when the finding on issue No. 5 is also under challenge was not free from dispute. A finding has been returned by the Appellate Court that the proper Court fee is not affixed. Hence, it was incumbent upon the Court to grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to affix the Court fee. It is not a case where the petitioner was trying to avoid the payment of Court fee and where there is no dispute regarding levy of Court fee. It was a disputed question in respect of liability of the petitioner to affix proper Court fee. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the respondents are not helpful in respect of the issue raised. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.6.2009 is set aside. The petitioner is granted one month's time to make up the deficiency in payment of the Court fee. If the Court fee is affixed on or before 12.11.2009, the learned first Appellate Court shall proceed with the appeal in accordance with law. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 12.11.2009, for further proceedings in accordance with law. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 13-10-2009 ds