G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 CPC challenging order dated 30.07.2014 passed by the District Judge, Mewat whereby, on account of non -deposit of Court fees as per orders of this Court in C.R. No. 3974 of 2014 titled Khan Mohammad and another vs. Rahisan, the District Judge assigned the appeal filed to the record room and did not admit the same to be heard on merits.
(2.) THE petitioners had earlier approached this Court in the above said revision petition since the appeal filed by them had been dismissed on account of the Court fees remaining unpaid as per opportunity given. This Court directed that the Court fees be paid by 30.07.2014 and set aside the order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the District Judge, Mewat and time was enlarged upto 30.07.2014 to make good the Court fees, failing which, the impugned order would stand revived. Instead of complying with the order immediately, the court fee was not deposited and when the file was taken up on 30.07.2014 the counsel expressed his inability to deposit the amount on account of the fact that it had been declared as a holiday on account of Teej festival. In such circumstances, the impugned order has been passed.
(3.) THOUGH , no fault can be found as such in the impugned order since this Court had itself observed that the earlier order would come into force but counsel has rightly pointed out that he was handicapped in view of the fact that on 29.07.2014, there was a holiday on account of Eid -Ul -Fitr and thus, the Government offices, including the Courts were closed. On the next day when appearance was put in, stamp papers could not be purchased and attached with the appeal, leading to the passing of the order. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioners' civil rights are involved and merely on account of the fact that administrative offices were closed and the petitioners were not able to comply with the order though the file was taken up on 30.07.2014. It has been further stated that the earlier order passed on 18.07.2014 was received only on 30.07.2014. It is settled principle that the rules of procedures are hand maids of justice and in such circumstances, the petitioners should not be handicapped to pursue their remedy of appeal on account of the facts mentioned above. The dispute has to be decided on merits and not on technicalities and benefit cannot be granted to one side only on account of the same. Even otherwise, the matter of Court fees and the fixation is a matter between the Court and the State and, therefore, the respondents will have no locus standi as such to object against the same.;