Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALRAM SINGH versus S.D.O. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Balram Singh v. S.D.O. & Others - WRIT - C No. 10897 of 1997 [2006] RD-AH 8115 (21 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.3

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.10897 of 1997

Balram Singh                                    .......                   Petitioner.

   Vs

Sub Divisional Officer,Bidhuna,

Disrict Etawah & others.                    ......                   Respondents.    

: Present :

(  Hon'ble Mr.Justice Amitava Lala & Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Misra )

                          : Appearance:

For the Petitioner                              ........       Sri Devendra Kumar

For the Respondents                        ........        Learned Standing Counsel

Amitava Lala,J.-  This review application is made beyond  the period without formulation of grounds and without appropriate court fees.  When it has been pointed out, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wanted  leave to grant time to put the court fees and formulate the grounds of review.

At this juncture we have gone through the Allahabad High Court Rules about the application for review.  Chapter V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules prescribes procedure for making application for review.  We find therein that the first part of the Rule 12 is relevant for the purpose.  Therefore, the said part is quoted hereunder.

"...An application for the review of a Judgement shall be presented to the Registrar, who shall endorse thereon the date when it is presented and lay the same as early as possible before the Judge or Judges by whom such judgement was delivered along with an office report as to limitation and sufficiency of court fees.  If such Judge or Judges or any one or more of such Judges be no longer attached to the court, the application shall be laid before the Chief Justice who shall, having regard to the provisions of Rule 5 of Order XLVII of the Code, nominate a Bench for the hearing of such application. ..."

Our reading is that there should be a scrutiny about the sufficiency of the court fees by the office.  Such scrutiny can only be made by the Stamp Reporter.  Therefore, scrutiny of the court fees by the Stamp Reporter before presentation of the review  application in the Court is an essential duty of the Registry.  It relates to revenue earning of the Court which should not be ignored.   We cannot entertain review application lightly like other miscellaneous applications including recalling/modification as a matter of course.  The scope of the review application is very limited.  Therefore the appropriate procedure should not be discouraged also for the purpose of reducing number of litigations.  Thus, according to us  making  application to the Registrar with office report about the court fees as per the rule is not an idle formality.  It has to be taken into account with true spirit of the rule.

However since it is the first matter precisely when  this Court thinks on the aforesaid line, instead of passing an order of dismissal let the file be send to the Registry for the purpose of scrutinization by the Stamp Reporter and deposit  of deficit court fees, if any as a last chance.

After completion of the formalities so directed hereunder within a week from this date, the matter will be placed in the list as and when the Bench will sit.  However, leave is granted to file supplementary affidavit stating all the grounds on the next date of hearing.

This order is to be treated mandate upon the Registry including Stamp Reporter of this Court in connection with the entertaining the review application.

            ( Justice Amitava Lala )

    I agree.

(Justice Sanjay Misra )

PKB

WP10897-97

Dt.21.4.06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.