MOTILAL Vs. KISTOOR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this review application the only question for determination at this stage is whether the petitioner Motilal should be required to pay only (half court-fee as he has done or full court-fee. It is necessary to state a few facts in order to bring out the point in issue clearly. The appeal out of which this review application has arisen was decided by this Court on the 8th September, 1954. The petitioner applied for copies of judgment and decree on the 30th September, 1954. The copies were ready on the 9th December, 1954, but were actually taken by the petitioner on the 14th December, 1954 The petitioner, however, presented his application for review, before, such copies were taken, on the 7th December, 1954. It thus appears that the review application was filed on the90th day of the decree under appeal. The relevant articles of the Court-fees Act are Nos. 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 of the Court-fees Act. They are as follows : - 4th:- Application for review of judgment if presented on or after the 90th day from the date of decree. The fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal. 5th:- Application for review of judgment, if presented before the 90th day from the date of the decree. Half of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

(2.) AS pointed out above, the review application was filed in the present case on the 90th day from the date of the decree and not before the 90th day. It clearly follows, therefore, on a plain reading of these articles that the petitioner must pay full court-fees leviable on the memorandum of appeal on his review application, as it was filed on the 90th day from the date of the decree.