' A declaratory,suit, with consequential relief was filed by the appellant, Habib Sultan, against the respondents,. Allah Ditta and others. The plaint in the suit was rejected by a Civil Judge under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that it was barred by time. The appellant went in appeal before an Additional District Judge, but his appeal was dismissed for the reason that he had not paid proper court-fee therefor. He has, therefore, come up in second appeal to this Court.
2. Admittedly, the court-fee paable on the first appeal was Rs, 20 but the appellant had paid a court-fee of Rs, 15 only.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions
(1) The appellant was an illiterate person and was not aware of the amendment in the law relating to the court-fees whereby the court-fee for a suit for declaration of appeal arising out of such suit was Rs, 20.
(2) The deficiency in court-fee was of Rs, 5 only and as it was negligible the learned Additional District Judge ought to have allowed the appellant to make up the deficiency.
4. In reply, it was urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that long before the filing of the appeal it was known to the appellant that the law relating to court-fees had been amended inasmuch as the appellant had valued his suit for the purpose of court-fee at Rs, 20 it was submitted by him that the deficiency in court-fee was pointed out by one of the respondents by means of an application dated the 21st June, 1979, but even then the appellant did not think of making good the deficiency till the 12th March 1980 when he made an application seeking permission to make up the deficiency. According to the learned counsel, the appellant had been guilty of gross negligence in the matter of the payment of court-fee and since a valuable right had accrued to the respondents due to the running out of the period of limitation the same could not be taken away by allowing the appellant to make good the deficiency in court-fee even if the deficiency was negligable.
4. The plea of illiteracy raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is of little avail to the appellant because he was assisted by a counsel all through. The amendment in the law relating to the court-fees to which reference has been made above was brought about by the Punjab Finance Act, 1973. The suit was filed by the appellant in 1978 and the first appeal in 1979. According to the said amendment, court-fee for a declaratory suit and appeal arising out of such suit was fixed at Rs,
20. The valuation of the suit was accordingly fixed by the appellant. I am, therefore, unable to believe that the said amendment was not known to the appellant or his counsel when the first appeal was tiled. Even if it was not within their knowledge, the ignorance of law is no excuse.
5. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant exhibited gross negligence in the matter of payment of court-fee. He did not pay the requisite court-fee at the time of the filing of the appeal on 5th December, 1978. Thereafter, on 21st June 1979, an application was made by one of the respondents seeking dismissal of his appeal for non-payment of proper court-fee. Instead of making good the deficiency in court-fee on the making of that application, the appellant had resisted the application. Learned Additional District Judge heard arguments on the said application and adjourned the same to 18th March, 1980 for orders. Before the announcement of his orders, however, on 12th March 1980 the appellant came up with an application seeking permission to make up the deficiency in court fee. All this speaks of culpable negligence on the part of the appellant in the matter of the payment of requisite court-fee. When he thought of making up the deficiency in court-fee the period of limitation for filing the appeal had run out and thus a valuable right had accrued in favour of the respondents. That right could not be taken away from them unless sufficient cause had been shown by the appellant for not paying proper court-fee in time. No such cause had, however, been shown by him. Therefore, the respondents could not be deprived of the vested right gained by them due to the passage of time even though the deficiency.In court-fee was of Rs, 5 only. The view taken by me finds support from the observations of Mr. Justice Karam Elahee Chauhan in Mst, Walavat Khatun v. Khalil Khan and another (1).
6. What emerges from the above discussion is that the order of the learned Additional District Judge is unexceptionable. The appeal is, there-fore, dismissed with costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) P L I) 1979 SC 821 {{FOOT NOTE}}