A suit is not barred by limitation if the plaint is presented within the prescribed period of limitation, even if the Court-fee is insufficient, and the deficiency is made good within the time granted by the Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The main question that requires decision in these cases is: whether a plaint presented within the period of limitation with insufficient stamp and the deficit in the stomp duty made good with in the time granted by the Court under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure but after the expiry of the period of limitation, is liable to be rejected as barred by limitation.

2. The facts giving rise to the question are these: The plaintiffs and the defendants in both the suits, O.S. Nos. 516 and 518 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, ere common. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 516 of 1970 to recover a sum of Rs. 4,073-76 Ps. being the principal and interest due on a promissory note, Ex. A-5 dated 9-4-1976 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 3,500/-. The suit O.S. No. 518 of 1970 was filed to recover a sum of Rs. 2,909/- being the principal and interest issue on a promissory note Ex. A-6 dazed 11-4-1976 executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiff-Firm for Rs. 2,500/-. The suit O.S. No. 516 of 1970 was filed on 5-4-1969 with a nominal Court-fee of Re. 1/-. The plaint was returned on 7-4-1 969 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. giving a week's time for the plaintiff to supply the requisite stamp, the deficiency in stamp was duly made good and the plaint was re-presented on 11-4-1969 apparently after the suit was barred by time. The suit O.S- 518 of 1970 was also presented with a nominal Court-fee of Re. 1/- on 9-4-1969. The plaint was returned on 11-4-1969 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. requiring the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in stamp within a week's time. The plaint was re-presented good the deficiency in Court-fee on 15-4-1969 obviously after the suit promissory note was barred by time. Both the suits were properly valued. The defendants mainly pleaded that the suits presented on 11-4-1969 and 15-4-1969 were barred by limitation and that the two promissory notes Exs. A-5 and A-6 were renewals of the earlier promissory notes and were not supported by consideration, it was also pleaded that the defendants were entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938. The trial Court after framing the necessary issues and on a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties held that the suit promissory notes were executed for cash consideration, that they were not renewals of earlier debts and that therefore the suit debts were not liable to be scaled down. On the question whether the suits were barred by limitation as the suits were not presented with sufficient Court-fee within time, the learned District Munsif held that the deficiency in Court-fee was made good within the time granted by the Court and therefore, the plaints cannot be rejected. Accordingly both the suits ware decreed by the trail Court. On appeal by the aggrieved defendants, the same contentions raised before the trial Court were repeated and repelled by the Appellate Court. That in brief is the genesis of these second appeals by the defendants.

3. The central argument, if not the exclusive argument, in these appeals that dominated the debate before me was whether a suit presented with insufficient Court-fee within the prescribed period of limitation and the deficit stamp supplied within the time allowed by the Court but after the expiry of the period of limitation, is liable to be rejected as barred by limitation.

4. The facts are not in dispute. The suits were presented with a nominal Court-fee stamp within the prescribed period of limitation. They were properly valued. The Court granted some time under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., to the plaintiff to pay the balance of Court-fee, The deficiency in Court-fee stamp was made good within the time allowed by the Court, but after the expiry of the period of limitation. The question is whether the suits so presented were not barred by limitation. It may be seen that in both the cases the deficit Court-fee was paid within the