Himachal Pradesh High Court Rejects Plea To Extend Time For Depositing Deficient Court Fees Citing Negligence
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court while denying extension of time for depositing deficient court fee in a decree for specific performance, held that bona fide reasons and absence of negligence were not established.
The Court was considering a Petition against an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge whereby an Application seeking extension of time for depositing the court fee, which was required to be deposited in terms of a decree passed in 2023, in a suit for specific performance was dismissed.
The Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held, "...There is no explanation given in this petition as to why this delay has occurred in assailing the order that was passed by the Trial Court, which demonstrates that not only there was negligence on the part of the petitioner in complying with the order that was passed by the Learned Trial Court while decreeing the truth but he was again negligent while assailing the order passed by the Trial Court in terms whereof his application for extension of time was dismissed."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Munish Datwalia, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Tanu Sharma.
Facts of the Case
Counsel for the Petitioner had argued that the Court has erred in rejecting the Application by not appreciating that as there was a decree passed in favour of the Petitioner and as delay in depositing the court fee was bona fide and not intentional.
He submitted that the delay in deposition of the amount was bona fide as the Petitioner had gone on a pilgrimage along with his family and thereafter he fell ill and it is on this count that the shortfall in the court fee could not be made good during the time granted by the Court
Reasoning By Court
The Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner failed to establish bona-fide reasons and the absence of negligence.
"Along-with the application, no document has been appended or was appended to demonstrate that indeed the petitioner had gone for a pilgrimage of two months since the third week of December, 2023 and that after coming back, he suffered viral infection, cough and fever, as is alleged in the application. Therefore, these bald assertions made in the application, are not supported by any document on record", the Court held.
The Application was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Satish Kumar v. Gurdial Singh (2025:HHC:38726)