Authored By : James Quain Pigot, Banerjee

James Quain Pigot and Banerjee, J.

1. We think this appeal must be dismissed. We need not dealwith the case referred to by the District Judge Balkaran Rai v. Gobind NathTiwari I.L.R. AIL 129 as to which we say nothing save that it is in somerespects not on all fours with the decision f this Court in Syud Ambur Ali v.Kali Chand Doss 24 W.R. 258 but quite apart from that case we think that thepresent case does not come within either the spirit or the letter of Section 28of the Court Fees Act. The memorandum of appeal was presented on the last daywith an 8-anna stamp, it was received with a memorandum upon it, "theappeal within time; stamp duty insufficient Rs. 204 odd." That was on the24th of May, the last day. On the 27th an endorsement was made upon it, signedby the District Judge, allowing the appellant one week; on the 5th of Junethere is a further endorsement allowing him a fortnight, and he appears to havepaid the full stamp duty on the 13th of June. We think that the District Judgewas quite right in holding that these proceedings were not such as Section 28contemplates, and were not such as to put the appeal in order when the stampwas ultimately received on the 13th of June. We think he was bound to dismissthe appeal.

2. We dismiss the appeal with costs.

.

Yakutun-nissa Bibeevs. Kishoree Mohun Roy and Ors.(11.08.1891 - CALHC)