NITYANANDA NAIKO Vs. RADHAMOHAN PANDA AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Radhamohan Panda and Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
B.K. Ray, J. -
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 25 -7 -1969 of the learned District Judge, Berhampur dismissing T.A. No. 27 of 1969 as barred by limitation.
(2.) IT appears that the date of the decree of the trial Court against which the aforesaid title appeal was filed is 21 -3 -1969 and the time available for obtaining certified copy of the decree is 15 days under Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act. The prescribed time for filing an appeal against the aforesaid decree of the trial Court is 30 days. Therefore, an appeal against the said decree would be in time if filed on or before 5 -5 -69. As a matter of fact, however, the aforesaid appeal was filed on 22 -4 -1969, and so, was within time. The learned District Judge, without applying his mind, dismissed the title appeal as barred by limitation by his order referred to above. Mr. N.V. Ramdas, learned Counsel for Respondents also concedes that the title appeal was wrongly dismissed as barred by limitation. This being the position, this appeal has to be allowed and the order under the appeal has to be set aside.
(3.) MR . S.C. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for Appellant, however, urges that under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, the Appellant is entitled to refund of the Court -fee paid on the memorandum of the present appeal. He relies upon Section 13 of the Court Fees Act. According to him, since the case is to be remanded to the lower appellate Court, this Court has to grant a certificate to the Appellant authorising him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of Court -fee paid on the memorandum of appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.