( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by a Judgment dated 28-1-2004 made in. O. S. No. 30 of 1999 on the file of the learned. Principal Senior Civil Judge, vizianagaram.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff, who laid the above suit for recovery of an amount of rs. 1,80,000/- together with interest at 24% per annum. Defendant No. 3 filed a detailed written statement, which was adopted by the other defendants, denying the various averments made in the plaint. At paragraph-17 of the written statement, it was asserted that the plaint itself was not properly presented and the same is not valid. It appears that the plaint has been presented on 16-1 -1998 with a Court fee of Rs. 500/- On 2-3-1998, a Court fee of Rs. 1700/- was paid. Similarly, on 30-6-1998, a Court fee of rs. 1,000/-, on 26-8-1998 a Court fee of rs. 1,005/- and finally on 8-4-1999 a Court fee of Rs. 21/- was paid in piecemeal. Such piecemeal payment of Court fee on the suit claim, without any authority and lawful reasons therefor, amounts to playing fraud on the Court. In other words, payment of court fee in piecemeal without any valid orders obtained from the Court is not a vaild presentation of the plaint, especially when the suit claim got barred by limitation on 2/-3-1998, even according to the cause of action at paragraph-l V of the plaint. Thus, the plaint was hopelessly barred by time. Law does not contemplate extension of statutory period of limitation by such instalment payments of deficit Court fee wantonly and intentionally. No proper orders have been obtained from the Court and any extension given in this regard, even subsequently, cannot be considered as vaild institution of the suit within time.

( 3 ) AFTER filing of written statement, issues were framed and an issue whetherthe suit is barred by limitation? was also settled for trial. Thereafter, the petitioner-defedants filed a petition under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Civil procedure Code to try the issue of limitation i. e. , issue No. 4 as a preliminary issue. The court below, after hearing both sides, answered the said issue in favour of the plaintiff holding that the Court has got absolute power under Section 149 of the Civil procedure Code to extend time at any stage for making good of deficit Court fee. It is only the presentation of the plaint in time, that is required and not the payment of deficit Court fee, for the purpose of limitation. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Civil Revision petition is filed.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Court below failed to appreciate that the suit was presented on 16-1-1998 with a Court fee of Rs. 500/-, whereas, even according to the plaint, the court fee payable was Rs. 4,226/ -. The plaint was returned on 21-1-1998 for payment of deficit Court fee. On representation without payment of deficit Court fee, it was again returned on 5-2-1998 for payment of deficit courtfee. Therafter, the plaint was returned several times for non-payment of sufficient court fee, The dates of return of plaint are 23-2-1998,10-3-1998,19-3-1998,1 -4-1998, 17-4-1998, 6-7-1998, 21-7-1998, 4-8-1998, 31-8-1998, 15-9-1998 and 1-4-1999; whereas, the limitation for filing the suit came to an end by 26-3-1998 itself. Therefore, the plaint should have been rejected as being barred by limitation for non-payment of sufficient Court fee within the period of limitation. It is unfortunate that the Court below held that under Section 149 of the Civil procedure Code, absolute discretion is vested in it. The discretion under Section 149 of the civil Procedure Code is a judicial discretion and the Court is not bound to exercise the discretion unless sufficient cause is shown for failure to pay the deficit Court fee or that there was a bona fide mistake in non-payment of adequate Court fee both are lacking in the present case.

( 5 ) PER contra, Ms

Click Here to Read the rest of this document