GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff-petitioner herein has preferred the above two CRPs. , against the common order passed in IA nos. 1217 of 2001 and 1218 of 2002 in an unnumbered Original Suit, on 7-8-2002 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

( 2 ) THE backdrop of the case leading to the filing of these revision petitions, is that the plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,120/- under the Hire purchase agreement, dated 25-7-1997 against the defendants. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit on 2-6-2001 and the plaint was returned on 6-6-2001 to comply the following defects by granting 10 days time. 1. Document No. 9 not filed. 2. Document Serial numbers be correctly noted. 3. DC Fof Rs. 110/- be paid. 4. Documents showing the payments shall be filed. 5. Summons, R. P. and process be filed. 6. Date of all documents be mentioned in list of documents.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff-petitioner represented the plaint on 10-6-2001 stating that the objections were complied with. The said plaint was again returned on 21-6-2001 pointing out that objections 1 to 6 were not complied with and 10 days time was granted for compliance of the same. But, the plaintiff-petitioner resubmitted that plaint on 10-7-2001 stating that he complied the objections and paid Rs. 110/- towards deficit court fee. The petitioner filed IA No. 1217 for condoning the delay in complying the objections. In that petition, he has noted the days of delay to be condoned. The said petition was returned on 16-7-2001 to note down the correct days of delay, by granting 10 days time. The plaint was also returned to comply the objections 1, 2, 4 and 6. The petitioner resubmitted the plaint along with IA No. 1218 of 2002 on 8-8-2001 for condoning the delay of 11 days. In IA no. 1217 of 2001, he noted the days of delay as 10 days. On 3-9-2001, both the I. As were numbered and notices were ordered to the respondents. The reason assigned in the petitions to condone the delay, is that due to oversight, he could not represent the plaint within time.

( 4 ) ON receipt of the notices, 2nd defendant-2nd respondent remained ex parte and 1st and 3rd defendants-respondents having appeared through Counsel, filed their counter stating that the petition itself is not maintainable and condoning the delay is not applicable to the suits and the reasons assigned in the petition, is not at all a valid ground.

( 5 ) THE Trial Court after hearing both sides and having held that the plaintiff- petitioner is not entitled for condonation of delay as sought for in both the petitions dismissed them. Having aggrieved by them, the present C. R. Ps. have been preferred.

( 6 ) HEARD Mr. J. Prabhakar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

( 7 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has paid major portion of the Court fee and the remaining deficit Court fee payable by the petitioner is a paltry one and that payment of the deficit Court fee subsequently, cannot be a ground to reject the applications of the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision reported in "prem Narain v. Vishnu exchange Charitable Trust", (AIR 1984 SC 1896), wherein the Apex Court has held thus:"this is a matter in which the conduct of the respondents calls for severe condemnation for the reason that on a question of paltry deficit in payment of Court fees instead of inviting decision of the issues involved in the dispute by adjudication on merits, the matter has been brought to this Court which from our point of view is a criminal waste of this Court s valuable time and for which the respondents are solely responsible. . . . . . . . . . . . As the respondents contested at very reasonable request of the appellant, they seem to be revelling in litigation and therefore they should be made liable to pay the costs. Respondent No. 1 shall pay rs. 500/- to the appellant as costs within four weeks from toda

Click Here to Read the rest of this document