The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of filing an application under Section 149 C.P.C. for extension of time for payment of deficit court fee, and the consequences of not doing so.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, on 24.09.2007, dismissing the I.A.No. 253 of 2006 in unnumbered O.S. Of 2006 and rejecting the plaint.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defendants/respondents herein borrowed Rs.3,60,000/-and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and executed a promissory note on 010. 2001. The first defendant/first respondent issued a cheque for Rs.30,000/-, dated 011. 2001, which was dishonoured as "Funds Insufficient". Hence, the plaintiff/first petitioner filed a suit on 010. 2004 for recovery of money due on the promissory note, but the same has been returned for payment of deficit court fee and to rectify the defect, two weeks time has been granted. But, the plaintiff/first petitioner has not rectified the defect and represented the plaint in time. He filed the application in I.A.No. 253 of 2006 under Section 151 of C.P.C. to condone the delay of 729 days in representing the plaint. The application in I.A.No. 253 of 2006 was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, by the impugned order dated 24.09.2007, observing that no application under Sec. 149 of C.P.C. has been filed to extend the time for payment of court fee, so the plaint has been rejected. Hence, it is against law. The Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to file an application under Sec. 149 C.P.C. To substantiate his claim, he relied upon the decision reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 505, Mansoor and others vs. Bagavathi Ammal; AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1577, Umesh Challiyil v. K.P.Rajendran;(2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 372, State of M.P. and another vs. Pradeep Kumar and another; and 2002 (3) CTC 22, Bhuvaneswari vs. R.Elumalai, and prayed for allowing of the Civil Revision Petition.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,19,250/- due on the promissory note. The Court fee ought to have been paid is Rs.46,4425. He paid only Rs.100/-and he filed the suit on 010. 2004 viz., the last date of limitation, without paying the proper Court fee. The plaint has been returned on 010. 2004, giving two weeks time for paying the deficit court fee and also for rectifying the other defects. But, it was represented only on 110. 2006 at District Court, without filing a petition to extend the time for payment of the Court fee. He ought to have filed a petition under Sec. 149 C.P.C. to extend the time for payment of court fee. To substantiate his case, he relied upon the decisions reported in (2003) 2 M.L.J. 305, K.Natarajan vs. P.K.Rajasekaran; (2007) 1 MLJ 669, V.N.Subramaniyam vs. A.Nawab John and others; 2005(5) CTC 401, S.V.Arjunaraja vs. P.Vasantha; and (2009) 1 MLJ 1328, Dhanalakshmi Financiers vs. Soundarammal and others and prayed for the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

4. The plaintiff/first petitioner herein has filed a suit for recovery of money due on promissory note dated 010. 2001, stating that the respondents herein borrowed Rs.3,60,000/- from the first petitioner and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% pa and executed a promissory note. For the first repayment, first respondent/first defendant has given a cheque for Rs.30,000/-, which was dishonoured as "Funds Insufficient". Hence, the plaintiff/ first petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,19,250/-due on promissory note. He ought to have paid the court fee of Rs.46,444.25, admittedly, he paid only Rs.100/-. He filed the plaint only on 010. 2004 viz., the last date of limitation. Hence, the plaint has been returned on 010. 2004 stating as under:-

1. Deficit court fee has to be paid.

2. TheCounsel has to sign in Page No.5. Time two weeks.

It was again represented, wherein it was mentioned as under:

"Return No.1 - Deficit Court fee paid.

Return No.2 - Duly complied.

Petition for condoning the del