Civil Revision No.427 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-8.7.2010 Makhan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Nek Raj and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Thind, Advocate for respondent No.1. Nemo for the remaining respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petition and emanating from the record, is that originally, Nek Raj son of Lachhman Dass respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) has filed the present suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell against Makhan Singh son of Banta Singh alias Dhatta Singh petitioner-defendant No.1 (hereinafter to be referred as “the contesting defendant”), which was decreed and he was directed to execute the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff within 1½ month after depositing the balance sale consideration by him (plaintiff) in Court. He was also restrained from alienating his share in the joint khewat, vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009. 2. The petitioner-defendant did not feel satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court and filed the appeal before the Ist Appellate Court without affixing the complete ad valorem court fee. 3. As deficiency of Court fees was not made good by the contesting defendant despite availing three opportunities, therefore, the Ist Appellate Court dismissed his appeal for want of prosecution and Court fees, vide impugned order Civil Revision No.427 of 2010 2 dated 14.1.2010. 4. The petitioner-defendant did not feel satisfied with the impugned order of the fist Appellate Court and filed the present petition. 5. The learned counsel has contended with some amount of vehemence that the petitioner-defendant has moved an application (Annexure P3) before the Ist Appellate court for grant of sufficient time to affix the ad valorem court fees on the ground that he could not arrange money for purchase of stamp papers of court fees to be affixed on the memorandum of appeal, but the Court did not grant adequate time to him in this regard. The submission is that now the petitioner- defendant has been able to arrange money and is ready to pay the court fees on the memorandum of appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff did not raise any serious objection in this relevant connection and only contended that the petitioner was some what negligent and delayed the affixing of court fees on the memorandum of appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record of the case with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to me, the present petition deserves to be accepted. 8. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner-defendant moved an application (Annexure P3) for granting time to enable him to affix the court fees on the memorandum of appeal before the Ist Appellate Court, in which, he has specifically mentioned that he could not arrange the money for purchase of stamp papers and sought adequate time. Now the petitioner is ready to affix the court fee. To my mind, poverty of a person cannot possibly be allowed to stand in the way of administration of justice and petitioner should be given adequate opportunity to remove such defects to enable him to pursue his legal remedies in accordance with law, because the delay on his part is not intentional, particularly when his valuable rights in property are involved in the lis. Civil Revision No.427 of 2010 3 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the present revision petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 14.1.2010 (Annexure P4) is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to pay the requisite Court fees on the memorandum of appeal on or before 16.8.2010. However, this would be subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. If the petitioner pays the costs and Court fees, then the Ist Appellate Court is directed to restore his appeal and decide the same on merits in accordance with law. 10. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Ist Appellate Court on 16.8.2010. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 8.7.2010 Judge AS