Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, ICICI Bank Limited, filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated December 12, 2018 passed by the District Judge, Sangli, dismissing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2018 for default in payment of deficit court fees. The bank had filed the appeal against an order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, which had rejected the bank's application for condonation of delay in filing a suit. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the bank failed to pay the deficit court fees despite being granted time. The bank contended that the deficit fees were deposited on the same day but the order was passed earlier. The High Court found that the bank had deposited the deficit fees and the delay was not intentional. The court held that the dismissal for default was perverse and that the appeal should be restored to be heard on merits. The High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the District Judge to restore the appeal, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Restoration of Appeal - Dismissal for Default - Deficit Court Fees - The District Judge dismissed the appeal for non-payment of deficit court fees. The High Court held that the appeal should be restored as the bank had deposited the deficit fees and the delay was not intentional. The court emphasized a liberal approach in restoration matters to decide cases on merits. (Paras 1-10)
B) Constitution of India - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 and 227 - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the order dismissing the appeal for default and directed restoration, as the lower court's order was perverse and caused failure of justice. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Judge erred in dismissing the Misc. Civil Appeal for default in payment of deficit court fees and whether the appeal should be restored on merits.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the impugned order dated December 12, 2018, and directed the District Judge, Sangli, to restore Misc. Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2018 to its original file and hear it on merits, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents.
Law Points
- Restoration of appeal dismissed for default
- payment of deficit court fees
- condonation of delay
- liberal approach in restoration
- Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
- Section 149 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (12) 62
WRIT PETITION NO.1104 OF 2021
Mr. Anshul Anjarlekar i/by. Raval Shah and Co. for Petitioner, Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam for Respondents
Budhadeo Mukharji, Central Bank of India, Shirishkumar Tatyaso Chavan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dismissing Misc. Civil Appeal for default in payment of deficit court fees.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (ICICI Bank) sought quashing of the order dated December 12, 2018 passed by the District Judge, Sangli, dismissing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2018, and restoration of the appeal for hearing on merits.
Filing Reason
The District Judge dismissed the appeal for non-payment of deficit court fees, which the bank claimed was deposited on the same day.
Previous Decisions
The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli had rejected the bank's application for condonation of delay in filing a suit. The bank appealed against that order, which was dismissed by the District Judge for default in payment of deficit court fees.
Issues
Whether the District Judge erred in dismissing the appeal for default in payment of deficit court fees when the fees were deposited on the same day.
Whether the appeal should be restored to be heard on merits.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the deficit court fees were deposited on the same day the order was passed, and the dismissal was perverse.
Respondents opposed the petition, but the court found no substantial opposition on merits.
Ratio Decidendi
The dismissal of an appeal for default in payment of deficit court fees is perverse if the fees were deposited on the same day. Courts should adopt a liberal approach in restoration matters to ensure that cases are decided on merits rather than on technicalities.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-
Petitioner is a Private Bank licenced under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949...
The impugned order dated December 12, 2018 is quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The petitioner (ICICI Bank) filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, which was dismissed for default. The bank filed an application for condonation of delay, which was rejected. The bank then filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2018 before the District Judge, Sangli. The District Judge dismissed the appeal for non-payment of deficit court fees on December 12, 2018. The bank filed the present Writ Petition on February 5, 2021, challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 149
