1998 Supreme(Ker) 310
Judges : S.KRISHNAN UNNI
State of Kerala - Appellant
Versus
Umesh Rao - Respondent
Case No : C.M.P.No.1732 of 1998 in L. A. A. No. 907 of 1997
Decided On : 08/04/1998
Advocates Appeared :
Advocate General (M.K. Damodaran) For Petitioner V.R. Venkita Krishnan For Respondent
The court emphasized the discretion of the court to extend the period for payment of balance court fee beyond thirty days under S.149 and S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and S.5 of the Limitation Act, and highlighted that the power to extend time for payment of court fee should be exercised in rarest of the rare cases.
Headnote:
Court Fees - Delay in Payment - S.149, S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and S.5 of the Limitation Act - S.52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - [Court Fees] - [Delay in Payment] - [S.52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959] - [The court discussed the operation of S.52 of the Act, the interpretation and effect of the provision, and the discretion of the court to extend the period for payment of balance court fee beyond thirty days under S.149 and S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and S.5 of the Limitation Act. The court also highlighted the harmonious consideration of S.52 of the Act and Ss.148 and 149 CPC, and indicated the circumstances under which such powers should be exercised, emphasizing that the power to extend time for payment of court fee should be exercised in rarest of the rare cases.]
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed to condone the delay of 83 days in remitting 2/3rd balance court fee payable in the appeal after it was admitted. The delay was attributed to administrative reasons beyond the control of the appellant, the State. The appeal was filed challenging the judgment in L.A.R. No. 2 of 1994 of Sub Court, Hosdurg.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay of 83 days was due to administrative reasons and was satisfied that the delay had to be condoned. The petition was allowed.
Issues: The main issue was the operation of S.52 of the Act and the discretion of the court to extend the period for payment of balance court fee beyond thirty days.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the harmonious consideration of S.52 of the Act and Ss.148 and 149 CPC, and indicated the circumstances under which such powers should be exercised, emphasizing that the power to extend time for payment of court fee should be exercised in rarest of the rare cases.
Final Decision: The petition to condone the delay in payment of balance court fee was allowed.
S. Krishnan Unni, J.
This is a petition filed under Ss.149 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and S.5 of the Limitation Act. to condone the delay of 83 days in remitting 2/3rd balance court fee payable in the appeal after it was admitted. It is stated that the delay was caused due to administrative reasons beyond the control of the appellant. State is the appellant. The appeal is filed challenging the judgment in L.A.R. No. 2 of 1994 of Sub Court. Hosdurg.
2. The claimant who is the respondent in the appeal opposes the petition in that there are no valid reasons for condoning the delay and administrative reasons are hardly relevant in the matter of paying the balance court fee. It is also contended that S.52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. 1959 (for short 'the Act') provides for time for payment upto 30 days and therefore the delay of 83 days should not be condoned.
3. There are similar petitions. very many in number. wherein after admission of appeals parties have not paid the 2/3rd balance court fee as provided in S.52 of the Act. Therefore. all the petitions were posted for common hearing and counsel were heard. The question involved is the operation of S.52 of the Act. Notice was issued to Advocate General in order to hear the views of the State in the matter. Learned Advocate General appeared before Court and placed his submissions. I am treating this as the leading case to project the problem and find out a solution.
4. S.52 of the Act reads as follows:
"52. Appeals - The fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the court of first instance on the subject matter of the appeal:
Provided that. in levying fee on a memorandum of appeal against a final decree by aperson whose appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the court of first instance or by the Court of appeal is pending. credit shall be given for the fee paid by such person in the appeal against the preliminary decree.
Provided further that one third of the fee payable in an appeal shall be paid at the stage of admission of first appeal or second appeal as the case may be. and the balance shall be paid within such a period. not later than fifteen days from the date of such admission as may be specified by the court; in case the appeal is admitted: Provided also that the court may. for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. extend the period upto dirty days.
(Explanation (1) to (5) omitted)".
The second proviso to the Section states that one-third of the fee payable in an appeal shall be paid at the stage of admission. whether it be a first appeal or a second appeal. It also mandates that the balance shall be paid within such period not later than fifteen days from the date of such admission. as may be specified by the Court. in case the appeal is admitted. The third proviso lays down that the court may. for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. extend the period upto thirty days. According to the above provision. when the appeal is filed and before admission. one-third of the court fee is payable. The balance two-third of the court fee shall be paid within such period as may be specified by the court. if the appeal is admitted. but it shall not be later than 15 days from the date of such admission. This means the Court can fix the date for payment of court fee within fifteen days from the date of admission. The third proviso says that the above fifteen days can be extended upto a period of 30 days by the court. for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. Therefore. a simple and plain reading of the above Section makes it clear that one-third of court fee should be paid before admission and the balance two-third. after admission of the appeal. on a date to be fixed by the Court; but it shall be within 15 days from the date of admission. The third proviso lays down that this period of fifteen days can be extended further by the Court. for sufficient reasons to be recorded in wri