Petition for grant of time cannot be dismissed on ground of limitation.

Ratnam, J.

1. This Civil Revision petition, at the instance of the defendants in O.S.No.519 of 1984, Sub Court, Coimbatore, is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.339 of 1989 in O.S.No.519 of 1984 dismissing that application filed by the petitioners under Sections 149 and 151 C.P.C. praying that the petitioners may be allowed to pay the court-fee of Rs.360.50.

2. In the suit O.S.No.519 of 1984 instituted by the respondent herein, they have prayed for the recovery of a sum of Rs.28,100 from the petitioners as per the claim made in the plaint. In the written statement filed by the petitioners, they not only disputed the claim made by the respondents in the plaint, but also put forward a counter claim against the respondents for the recovery of a sum of Rs.13,668.10. In Paragraph 11 of the written statement, the petitioners set out the details of the counter claim and in paragraph 21, the petitioners also expressed their willingness to pay the court-fee on the amount of Rs.13,668.10 when their counter claim is allowed by Court. It is now common ground that the petitioners did not pay the Court-fee payable on the counter claim made by them in the written statement, but that issue No. 13 framed in the suit related to the counter claim so made by the petitioners. It is also not in controversy that the examination of the witnesses on both sides had been completed. It was at that stage that the petitioners came forward with an application in I.A.No.339 of 1989 stating that though they had earlier stated in their written statement that they were willing to pay the Court-fee on the counter claim of Rs.13,668.10, they had since restricted their counter claim to Rs.4,795/- and that the court-fee was omitted to be paid by oversight and mistake and they should be permitted to pay the Court-fee as the omission to pay the court fee was only due to a bona fide and honest mistake and not due to any negligence. In their counter, the respondents contended that after having taken a stand in paragraph 21 of the written statement that they were willing to pay the Court-fee if and when the counter claim is allowed and not having paid the Court-fee as undertaken, it was not open to the petitioners to seek the exercise of a discretion in their favour for payment of the Court-fee at that stage of the proceedings. It was also stated by the respondents that the application was barred by limitation. The Court below took the view that though the petitioners had stated in their written statement that they would pay the Court-fee on the counter claim, yet, they had not paid the same despite the framing of an issue in that regard and that the petitioners had also not made the application bonafide and in time. In that view, the application was dismissed, the correctness of which is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, inviting attention to Section 149, C.P.C. and the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mannan Lal v. Chhotka Bibi , contended that the very object of Section 149 C.P.C. is to mitigate the rigour of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Court Fees Act', for short) and that the Court below was in error in haying proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the application was not bona fide and in time. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that though the petitioners had expressed their willingness to pay the Court-fee on the counter claim even in paragraph 21 of their written statement, they had not done so in spite of an issue in that regard having been framed and the application filed by the petitioners was not at all bona fide and the exercise of discretion by the Court below in the manner done did not deserve to be interfered with, as it would also deprive the respondents of a valuable plea of limitation. Reference was also made in this connection to some decisions relating to the manner i