Being Short Of Funds To Pay Court Fee Is Not A Sufficient Reason To Condone Delay To File Appeal: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that being short of sufficient funds to pay court fee is not a reason to condone delay in filing appeal.

In such a scenario, an appeal can be filed in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter the defects can be removed by paying deficit court fees.

In this case, the High Court dismissed the delay condonation applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, declining to condone a delay of 254 days to file First Appeal,on the ground that the reasons assigned for the condonation were not sufficient reasons for condonation of the delay. The only reason assigned for the delay was that he was not having sufficient funds to pay the court fee.

In appeal, the court noted the provisions of Section 149 CPC which deals with the power to make up deficiency of Court Fees.- Where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to court fees has not been paid, the Court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of such court-fee; and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance

While upholding the High Court order, the bench made the following observations

There must be a reasonable explanation for the delay.

An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day’s delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay.

 There is provision under the law for filing a defective appeal

In any case, even it is presumed for the sake of argument that the appellant was short of funds, at the relevant point of time and was not able to pay court fee, nothing barred him from filing the appeal as there is provision under the law for filing a defective appeal, i.e., an appeal which is deficient as far as court fee is concerned, provided the court fee is paid within the time given by the Court

..We find that the High Court was right in dismissing Section 5 application of the appellant as insufficient funds could not have been a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, under the facts and circumstance of the case. It would have been entirely a different matter had the appellant filed an appeal in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter removed the defects by paying deficit court fees. This has evidently not been done.

The court also considered the case on merits also and dismissed the appeal.

Case details

Ajay Dabra vs Pyare Ram | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69| SLP (C) No.15793 OF 2019 | 31 Jan 2023 | Justices P S Narasimha and Sudhanshu Dhulia

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Adhitya Srinivsan,, Adv. Mr. Adhitya Srinivsan, Adv. Mr. Tapan Masta, Adv. Mr. Parantap Singh, Adv. Mr. Parantap Singh, Adv. Mr. Karan Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

Headnotes

Limitation Act , 1963 ; Section 3,5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 96, 149 -  Being short of sufficient funds to pay court fee is not a reason to condone delay in filing appeal - In such a scenario, an appeal can be filed in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter the defects can be removed by paying deficit court fees. (Para 5-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 149 CPC - Court Fees Act 1870 ; Section 4 - Section 149 CPC acts as an exception, or even a proviso to Section 4 of Court Fees Act - In terms of Section 4, an appeal cannot be filed before a High Court without court fee, if the same is prescribed - But an appeal can be filed in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter the defects can be removed by paying deficit court fees. 

Limitation Act , 1963 ; Section 3,5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 96 - An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day’s delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay. (Para 5)

Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 ; Section 118 - The whole purpose of Section 118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with small holdings. Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a nonagriculturist, and this is with a purpose. The purpose is to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. A person who is not an agriculturist can only purchase land in Himachal Pradesh with the permission of the State Government. The Government is expected to examine from a case to case basis whether such permission can be given or not - By merely assigning rights to an agriculturist, who will be using the land for a purpose other than agriculture, would defeat the purpose of this Act. (Para 17)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment