@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G.C. Garg, J.@mdashPetitioner seeks revision of the order dated November 20, 1990 passed by the learned District Judge, Karnal whereby the
appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed for non-payment of court fee.
2. Respondent-bank filed a sujt against the petitioner and others for the recovery of money. The suit was decreed on August 12, 1988. The
defendant-petitioner preferred an appeal. Along with the appeal, an application was moved by him to entertain the appeal on behalf of the
petitioner as an indigent person. The petitioner was held to be not an indigent person by order dated September 18, 1990. He was consequently
permitted to make up the deficiency in the court fee on or before October 27, 1990. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the order
declining his prayer to be declared as an indigent person. Consequently, the time to make up deficiency in court fee was further extended. But it
seems that the order passed in the revision petition did not reach the trial Court in lime and the petitioner made another application before the
appellate Court for granting further time for the purpose. Learned appellate Court extended the time upto November 20, 1990 but the deficiency
in the court fee was still not made good. Consequently, by the order under revision, the petitioner''s appeal was dismissed for non-payment of the
requisite court fee.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to make up the deficiency in court fee and the appeal in the
facts of the present case deserves to be decided on merits after the court fee is made good. In the circumstances, it was prayed that at least two
weeks'' time be granted to the petitioner for the purpose.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is hardly any justification to grant further time. But in spite of that being so, having
regard to the fact that as far as possible the controversy between the parties should be allowed to be settled on merits and that no injustice is likely
to be caused to any of the parties, if the petitioner is permitted to make up the deficiency in court fee. I therefore, in the peculiar facts of the present
case, accept the revision, quash the order under revision and permit the petitioner to make up the deficiency in Court on or before October 8,
1993 subject to payment of Rs. 300/- as costs. If the deficiency in court fee is made good, the appeal shall be entertained and decided on merits in
accordance with law but in case the petitioner fails to do so within the time aforesaid this revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed.