AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Laxmi Narain Mittal, J.—Plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 31.07.2013 (Annexure P-6), passed by the trial court. In suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner against respondents/defendants, counterclaim has been made by the defendants. The plaintiff/petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (in short - "CPC" for rejecting the counter-claim due to nonpayment of ad valorem court fee. Learned trial court, vide order dated 11.07.2013 (Annexure P-5), directed the defendants/counter-claimants to pay ad valorem court fee on the minimum amount of Rs. 13.50 crores claimed in the counter-claim, on or before 31.07.2013.
On 31.07.2013, the trial court, by impugned order Annexure P-6, on request, extended the time to pay the requisite court fee, up to 20.08.2013, on the counter-claim Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.
I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that even written application was not moved by the defendants for extending time, and therefore, time could not be extended. It was also argued that there was no discretion with the trial court to extend time in view of Section 149 CPC. Reliance has been placed on two judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court namely Buta Singh (Dead) by L. Rs. Vs. Union of India, and A. Nawab John and Others Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam, . It was also argued that no sufficient cause was shown by defendants for extension of time for payment of requisite court fee.
I have carefully considered the matter.
Combined reading of Sections 148 and 149 and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC leaves no manner of doubt that the Court has absolute discretion to extend time for payment of court fee, although such discretion has to be exercised in judicial and not arbitrary manner. Such extension of time can also be'' granted on oral request. u/s 148 CPC, it is provided that the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. Thus, in this provision, there is no mandatory requirement of filing written application for extension of time. Proviso to Order 7 Rule 11 CPC also postulates that time fixed for payment of deficient court fee can be extended on sufficient cause being shown. Consequently, there can be no dispute with the proposition that the Court has discretion to extend the time for payment of deficient court fee.
Judgments in the cases of Buta Singh and A. Nawab John (supra) are completely distinguishable on facts and do not help the petitioner in any manner. In the case of Buta Singh (supra), land owners had filed first appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Arguments were concluded and judgment was reserved. The land owners gained impression that the appeal was likely to be allowed. Thereupon, they filed application for permission to pay additional court fee claiming enhancement of compensation. The said application was held to be not bona fide. In that case, thus, the land owners were not to pay court fee only, but they were seeking to amend the appeal by claiming enhanced compensation and by paying more court fee accordingly. Thus, in that case, the facts were entirely different. In the case of A. Nawab John (supra), it was held that no amount of lapse of time fetters power of Court to direct payment of deficit court fee. It was also held that the matter is discretionary.
Coming to the facts of the instant cage, the defendants/counter claimants had to pay huge amount of court fee on the amount of Rs. 13.50 crores. However, vide order Annexure P-5, they were granted time of 20 days only to pay the same. In these circumstances, keeping in view the very huge amount of court fee to be paid by the defendants/counter-claimants, if the trial court granted another 20 days'' time to them to pay the deficient court fee, vide impugned order dated 31.07.2013 (Annexure P-6), it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the trial court is not in judicial manner or that the said discretion has been exercised in arbitrary manner or without sufficient cause.
It is correct that the impugned order of the trial court is a bit sketchy and brief and the trial court should have recorded specific reason for extending the time, for payment of deficit court fee. However, the reason for the same is apparent on the record, because heavy amount of court fee is to be paid and initial time granted to the defendants for the same, being 20 days only, was a very short period.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the discretion exercised by the trial court for extending the time for payment of deficit court fee by defendants/counter-claimants cannot be said to be perverse or illegal nor it is suffering from jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. Civil Miscellaneous application, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as in-fructuous.