AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice G. Rajasuria
A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:
The first respondent / plaintiff filed a suit based on a registered hypothecation bond. In this connection, he presented the plaint by paying admittedly
lesser Court fee and it was returned. Later several times it was represented and returned and subsequently, the full Court fee was paid and the suit
was numbered. After receipt of the suit summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed the written statement by stating that the suit was
barred by limitation since the Court fee was not paid at the time of plaint, but long after it and that too, when the Court had several times returned
the suit for non-compliance. The Trial commenced and the plaintiff adduced evidence. When the matter was posted for evidence on the
defendants'' side, the chief examination of R.W. 1 was commenced. At that time, the defendants filed application under Order 7 Rule 11(c) of
CPC for rejecting the plaint on the ground that the Court fee was not paid at the appropriate time so to say within limitation period and that too
without filing any proper application to get the delay condoned in paying the Court fee. The Lower Court, after hearing both the sides, dismissed
the application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds.
The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners would submit that one application u/s 151 CPC was filed along with the plaint seeking time to
deposit the deficit Court fee and that application was not even numbered by the Court and no order was passed within the time. The Lower Court
from time to time, extended the period for paying the deficit court fee and ultimately the deficit court fee was paid only on 30.07.2006. Therefore,
the counsel would pray for return of the plaint after setting aside the order of the Lower Court.
Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments put forth and set forth on the side of the Revision Petitioners, the learned counsel for
the respondents / defendants would pyramid his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:
The Court granted time for payment of deficit court fee and accordingly it was paid over which the defendants could have no quarrel. Admittedly,
the application was filed at the time of filing the plaint itself for getting time extended for payment of deficit court fee and the Court also from time to
time extended the time for payment of court fee and in such a case, the defendants cannot try to achieve success in the litigative battle by picking
holes in respect of procedural aspects of the matter in payment of court fee. Readily, it is not known as to when the period of limitation got expired
for filing the suit. It is not known what was the period of discharge for the hypothecation deed and from which date 12 years'' period should be
calculated. Over and above that, there is no information available as to how many applications were filed. Admittedly, one application was filed
along with the plaint itself u/s 151 CPC and the fact remains that from time to time, the Court itself extended the time for payment of court fee. As
such, this is a mixed question of law and fact. After commencement of the defendants'' side during trial, the defendants were not justified in simply
filing such application under Order 7 Rule 11(c) of C.P.C. As per the verdict of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case P.K. Palanisamy Vs. N.
Arumugham and Another, , the matter should be processed. Excerpts from the decision would run thus:
An application for rejection of the Plaint was filed only in the year 2008. Evidently, that was not the stage for entertaining the Application.
Order 7, Rule 11(c) of the Code could not have been invoked at that point of time.
In the same judgment, the Hon''ble Supreme Court also detailed and delineated the factual as well as legal aspects concerning the belated payment
of court fee. The Lower Court is expected to concentrate on all these points and decide the matter at the time of disposal of the main case. The
limitation point was also raised by the defendants. Hence, while deciding the limitation point, the Lower Court is enjoined to decide as to whether
the belated payment of Court fee was justified in the factual matrix of this case, adhering to the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court cited supra.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
At the time of pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that a time frame may be fixed with regard to
the disposal of this case. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Accordingly, I grant two months'' time
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the Lower Court to dispose of the matter.