Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.THANIKACHALAM
S.V.Arjunaraja - Appellant
Versus
P.Vasantha - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1381 of 2004
Decided On : 08 August 2005
C.P.C. - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(c) - Section 148, 149 - The court considered the grounds for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) C.P.C. and the provisions of Section 148 and 149. The court analyzed the plaintiff's failure to pay the deficit court fee within the stipulated time and the implications on the limitation period. The court also discussed various legal principles and case laws related to the extension of time for payment of court fees and the effect on the limitation period.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of money based on a promissory note. The defendant attempted to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) C.P.C. due to the plaintiff's failure to pay the deficit court fee within the stipulated time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to pay the deficit court fee within the stipulated time, and the subsequent payment did not save the limitation period. The court held that the plaint should be rejected as barred by limitation.
Issues: The issues involved the plaintiff's failure to pay the deficit court fee within the stipulated time, the implications on the limitation period, and the applicability of Order VII Rule 11(c) C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the plaintiff's non-compliance with the requirement to pay the deficit court fee within the stipulated time, as well as the legal provisions and case laws related to the extension of time for payment of court fees and its effect on the limitation period.
Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the numbering of the suit, and directed the trial court to strike off the suit from its file as time-barred.
In negotiable instrument cases, the principles related to the payment of court fees and their implications on the limitation period are highly relevant. The core legal issue involves whether the payment of deficit court fees after the expiration of the limitation period can be considered valid under the applicable provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
Specifically, if the court grants time for the payment of court fees, such extension must be properly recorded, and the payment must be made within the period granted, with reasons recorded by the court. If the payment of deficit court fees is made after the limitation period has expired, and no valid extension of time has been granted by the court, the suit may be barred by limitation (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the provisions of Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code empower courts to allow the payment of court fees at any stage, and upon such payment, the document or suit is deemed to have the same force as if the fee had been paid initially. However, this is contingent upon the court's proper exercise of discretion, with reasons recorded, and not on a mechanical or unauthorized extension (!) (!) (!) .
In the context of negotiable instruments, where the limitation period is strictly enforced, failure to pay the requisite court fees within the prescribed period, without valid court authorization or extension, can lead to the rejection of the plaint as time-barred. The payment of court fees after the limitation period, without a proper extension, does not revive the suit or extend the limitation period (!) (!) .
Therefore, in negotiable instrument cases, it is crucial that the plaintiff ensures that the court fee is paid within the limitation period or that a valid, properly recorded extension is obtained. Otherwise, the suit may be dismissed as barred by limitation, affecting the enforceability of the instrument.
(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order dated 9.1.2004 passed in I.A.No.521 of 2003 in O.S.No.153 of 2003 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.)
The defendant, who attempted before the trial Court by filing I.A.No.521 of 2003 in O.S.No.153 of 2003, invoking the grounds available under Order VII Rule 11(c) C.P.C., to reject the plaint, failed and the result is this revision.
2. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,29,166.50, with interest on Rs.2,50,000/-, at the rate of 24% per annum, from the date of plaint, till the date of realisation, on the basis of a promissory note dated 30.12.1999, alleging that the defendant/revision petitioner had borrowed the said amount, for his family expenses and business, promising to repay the same, on demand, failed to do so and therefore, he should be directed to pay the said amount.
3. The revision petitioner/defendant, in his written statement, has stated that the suit promissory note is a forged, fabricated and concocted by the plaintiff's husband and this vexatious suit is filed, in her name, thereby denying, not only the execution of the promissory note, but also disputing the liability.
4. The revision petitioner/defendant, after going through the presentation of the plaint in the Court, felt that the suit itself should not have been numbered, whereas it should have been rejected, as contemplated under Order VII Rule 11(c) C.P.C. In this view, he has filed an application, in I.A.No.521 of 2003 in O.S.No.153 of 2003, to reject the plaint, contending that within the period of limitation for the suit, sufficient Court Fee has not been paid, whereas, the Court Fee has been paid after the period of limitation is over, which was also condoned, even without issuing notice to the revision petitioner/defendant and in this view, the plaint should be rejected.
5. The petition, for rejecting the plaint, was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff, contending that within the time extended by the Court, which is competent to extend the time for payment of Court Fee, deficit Court fee has been paid, thereby, taking back the case, to the date of original filing, which was in time, and therefore, rejection of the plaint is not permissible.
6. The trial Court, considering the rival contentions of the parties, came to the conclusion, that only on the basis of the permission granted by the Court, deficit Court Fee has been paid, thereby, bringing the suit within the time, which is not liable to be rejected. Thus, taking the view, the petition came to be dismissed, on 9.1.2004, which is under challenge in this revision.
7. Heard both sides.
8. In order to solve the dispute raised in this case, certain dates and events should be remembered. The suit is based upon a promissory note dated 30.12.1999. There is no endorsement of any subsequent payment, acknowledging the debt. Therefore, in the ordinary course, the suit should have been filed, within three years, from the date of execution of the promissory note, that is on or before 30.12.2002. Admittedly, in this case, the suit was filed on 26.12.2002, within the period of three years, thereby, filing the suit in time, whether it is sufficiently stamped or not. It is also an admitted position, that at the time of filing the suit, the plaintiff has not paid the requisite Court Fee of Rs.32,188.25, whereas, he had affixed stamp only for a sum of Rs.100/-. The plaint was returned on 30.12.2002, with an endorsement "deficit court fee to be paid. Returned. Time one month". The plaintiff, without complying the direction of the court, re-presented the plaint on 27.1.2003. Because of the non-compliance of the return dated 30.12.2002, once again, the plaint was returned on 28.1.2003, with an endorsement "previous direction not complied with. Hence, returned. Time one month". Once again, the adamant plaintiff, who is expected to pay the deficit Court Fe
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
