SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Tharvinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
Viresh Chopra - Respondent
C.R.P. 60 of 2020, CM Appls. 22672 of 2020 and 22674 of 2020
Decided On : 04-01-2022




Timely compliance with orders for amendment and court fees is mandatory, with failure resulting in dismissal for non-prosecution; dismissal is not automatic upon failure to pay fees without a specific court order.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Order VII Rule 11 - Amendment of plaint and court fees - Plaintiffs' application for amendment allowed, Defendants' application for rejection dismissed - Plaintiffs failed to pay deficient court fees, leading to dismissal of suit for non-prosecution - Court reiterated non-automatic dismissal for non-compliance of court fee payment and emphasized the necessity of filing amended plaint within stipulated time. (Paras 3, 9, 10, 14, 15)

(B) Non-compliance with court orders - Dismissal of suit for non-prosecution affirmed - Court noted that failure to adhere to orders on amendment of plaint and court fees resulted in dismissal - The court highlighted the need for timely compliance and the non-automatic nature of plaint rejection under court fees regulations. (Paras 10-14)

Facts of the case:
The revision petition challenges the dismissal order which stated that the Plaintiffs did not file the amended plaint despite being given several opportunities. Plaintiffs failed to pay the deficient court fees and subsequently did not appear in court, leading to the suit's dismissal for non-prosecution.

Findings of Court:
The court found that dismissal for non-compliance with court orders is justified, reiterating the requirement to file the amended plaint within the time prescribed and highlighting that failure to do so warranted dismissal.

Issues: Whether the Plaintiffs' failure to file the amended plaint within the stipulated time led to the appropriate dismissal of the suit and whether the non-payment of court fees justified the Defendants' application for rejection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that amendments to a plaint, once allowed, must be filed within the designated period, and subsequent failure to comply mandates dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution as per applicable legal provisions. Non-automatic rejection of plaint for non-compliance with court fees was emphasized, along with the requirement for proactive plaintiffs.

Result: Revision petition dismissed as infructuous.

Table of Content
1. petition challenges amendment order. (Para 2 , 3)
2. plaintiffs failed to appear in court. (Para 4 , 5)
3. background of trial court's orders. (Para 6 , 8)
4. arguments regarding court fees and amendments. (Para 9 , 12)
5. dismissal due to non-compliance. (Para 10 , 11)
6. conclusion and future implications of dismissal. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. In the present revision petition, the Petitioners/Defendants (hereinafter "Defendants") have challenged the impugned order dated 28th July, 2020 by which the application of the Respondents/Plaintiffs (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been allowed and the application of the Defendants under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed in CS No.610018/16 titled Viresh Chopra & Ors. v. Tharvinder Singh & Ors..

3. Vide the impugned order, the Plaintiffs were directed to file the amended plaint, on the next date of hearing or within 15 days upon resumption of normal hearing, whichever was later.

4. In the present revision petition, the ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs seeks an adjournment today on the ground that the main counsel is not available. It is seen from the record that since inception, after notice was issued in this matter, the Plaintiffs have failed to appear before this Court. Service was also effected in the matter and on 11th October, 2021, the Registrar records that both the Plaintiffs are well aware of the proceedings, they have been duly served, and they have chosen not to appear before the Court. On 8th November, 2021, Mr. Tomar, ld. Counsel appeared for the Plaintiffs and submitted that he would be filing his vakalatnama in respect of the Plaintiff's legal heirs, i.e., Respondent Nos.2A, 2B & 2C, however, till date the vakalatnama has not been filed. He appears again today and seeks further time to file the vakalatnama.

5. In the meantime, Mr. Diwan, ld. Counsel for the Defendants, submits that the suit itself has been dismissed in default as per the order of the Trial Court dated 22nd March, 2021. A copy of the said order has been emailed to the Court Master.

6. This Court has perused the said order and the record of the suit before the Trial Court. A background of these proceedings is as below.

7. Vide the Trial Court's order dated 14th September, 2018, the application filed by the Defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was disposed of. One of the grounds in the said application seeking rejection of the plaint was on account of deficiency in payment of the Court fees by the Plaintiffs. The Trial Court in this order, had directed the Plaintiffs to pay the deficient Court fees in the following terms:

    "23. The plaint filed by the plaintiff cannot be rejected on the ground of deficient court fees, however an opportunity is being provided to the plaintiff to pay the balance deficient court fees on the amount of Rs.1.75 Crore after making the adjustment of the court fee already filed with in a period of six weeks.

    24. The application under Order VII rule 11 CPC filed by defendant is disposed of with the direction to the plaintiff to pay the court fees in terms of paragraph no.23 of the order failing which consequential order shall follow."

8. On 3rd December, 2018, the Trial Court noticed that the Court fee was not paid by the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs had filed an application under Section 148 CPC seeking extension of time in depositing the said fees. The said application under Section 148 CPC was dismissed as withdrawn. On the same very date, the Plaintiffs were permitted to move an application seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application filed by the Plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, alongwith an application under proviso to Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Defendants were again considered by the Trial Court, and decided in the impugned order dated 28th July, 2020.

9. Vide the said order, the amendment of the plai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top