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

2002 Supreme(Mad) 1290

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
A. Sakthivel – Appellant
Versus
V. A. Shanmogavel – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr.N.Prem Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: ---

Judgment :-

The challenge in this revision is to the order of the court below dated 6.8.2002 in I.A.No.17036 of 2001 in O.S.No.2676 of 2001 rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. According to the petitioner, the respondent who filed a suit based on an alleged pro-note executed by the petitioner, filed the same with deficit court fee though within the prescribed time limit, that the permission granted by the court below in its order dated 20.12.2000 in I.A.No.1752 of 2000 by condoning the delay in the payment of deficit court fee of Rs.10,000.50 was not in order and therefore the plaint was liable to be rejected by the court below. However, the court below, on finding that the suit was filed within the prescribed time limit and the deficit court fee having been paid on 31.3.2000 when I.A.No.1752 of 2000 was filed seeking condonation of delay in payment of deficit court fee, allowed the said application on 20.12.2000. In my view, it cannot be held that there was any scope for invoking Order 7 Rule 11 in order to reject the plaint. I am fully in agreement with the reasoning of the court below . On a reading of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., I find that u

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top