Bhag Singh Vs. the State of Punjab Through the Secretary to Government Punjab, P.W.D. (B. and R.) Department and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of a person governed by customary law and constitutional validity of section 14 of hindu succession act. thus there is no real conflict between the two full bench judgments. both the full bench judgments have been delivered on the assumption that joginder singhs case dealt with question of alienation whereas pritam singhs case had decided the question concerning succession. even on fact in joginder singhs case the issue was validity of alienation by consent decree by a father to his two sons, which was challenged by third son, whereas in pritam singhs case the question of nature of property in hands of sons on death of their father had arisen for purposes of assessment of estate duty. in pritam singhs case the property in the hands of the sons was held to be coparcenary property and only 1/3rd of property belonging to deceased father was considered eligible for estate duty. therefore, there was no question of alienation in pritam singhs case......instead of making an application for restoration of the 'application, for making up the deficiency in court fee, filed, the court fee in the office, thus, the court fee already stands paid.2. learned counsel for the respondents contends that in view of the judgment of hon'ble supreme court in the scheduled caste co-operative land owning society ltd. bhatinda v. union of india, (1991-1) 99 p.l. 324 (s. c.), the petitioner cannot be allowed to make up, deficiency in court fee after such a long time. i find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the reason that permission, to make up, deficiency in court fee had already been granted and that matter stood concluded; between the parties. the applicant was, allowed to make up the deficiency and that order had become final because the same was not challenged before any competent court. the application which was dismissed in default was only for extension of time, it was one of the enshrined objects, of our constitution that justice would be delivered and not sold. the state instead of meeting its equitable obligations, proposes to deny the, same, on technical objection of delay in payment of court fee which is again to go.....

Judgment:

ORDER

M.S. Liberhan, J.

1. Admittedly the application for extension of time for making up the deficiency in Court fee was made within time. However, the same was dismissed in default. The petitioner under advice of counsel instead of making an application for restoration of the 'application, for making up the deficiency in Court fee, filed, the Court fee in the office, thus, the Court Fee already stands paid.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd. Bhatinda v. Union of India, (1991-1) 99 P.L. 324 (S. C.), the petitioner cannot be allowed to make up, deficiency in Court fee after such a long time. I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the reason that permission, to make up, deficiency in Court fee had already been granted and that matter stood concluded; between the parties. The applicant was, allowed to make up the deficiency and that order had become final because the same was not challenged before any competent Court. The application which was dismissed in default was only for extension of time, It was one of the enshrined objects, of our Constitution that justice would be delivered and not sold. The State instead of meeting its equitable obligations, proposes to deny the, same, on technical objection of delay in payment of Court fee which is again to go to the prefers of the State. It is the State, which is to charge the Court fee. The ends of justice would be sufficiently met if delay in filing the Court fee, if any, is condoned. The office is directed to prepare memo of costs in the decree passed by the learned Single Bench.