The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acceptance of payment of deficit court fee without an application is not irregular and the plaint stands good from the original date of filing and is not time-barred.

1. The revision petitioner/petitioner/94th defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the orders dated 14. 2008 in I.A.No.130 of 2008 in O.S.No.74 of 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court No.1, Erode in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner herein praying to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(c) and Section 151 of CPC.

2. The trial Court, while passing order in I.A.No.130 of 2008 has inter alia opined that without filing the application under Section 149 of CPC praying to condone the delay in regard to the payment of deficit Court Fee, the act of receiving the Court Fee by the Court is an irregular one but the same is not illegal and resultantly dismissed the application.

3. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the order of the trial Court in dismissing I.A.No.130 of 2008 is contrary to law and that the trial Court has failed to note that it erred in law in extending the time for payment of Court Fee without any application being filed for such extension and moreover the extension of time for payment of Court Fee is not an automatic and that when the payment of Court Fee of paltry sum of Rs.100/- has been paid then admittedly, huge amount of deficit Court Fee has to be paid and this itself shows lack of bonafide on behalf of the plaintiffs and moreover, the time granted by the trial Court to pay deficit Court Fee has expired during vacation and hence the deficit Court Fee ought to have been paid on the reopening date and whereas it has been paid only long after that an that too without a petition for extension of time under Section 149 of CPC and that the trial Court has proceeded on the assumption that there has been delay of 37 days only but it has failed to take into account of the fact that the issue is not about the number of days but whether without an application for extension, the Court can extend the time in this regard and in any event on the date when the deficit Court Fee has been paid, the claim or right itself has become statutorily barred and therefore prays for allowing this civil revision petition in the interest of justice.

.4. Contending contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that the suit O.S.No.74 of 2007 has been filed on 4. 1994 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for delivery of possession and damages, directing the defendants therein to deliver vacant possession of the suit properties after removing the superstructures put up by them at their costs within a time to be specified by this Court etc. and for the relief of damages of Rs.1,00,000/- towards value of the trees cut and removed and the damages done to the walls and building in the suit property and to the suit properties and for the relief of past damages to an extent of Rs.1,65,000/-and for future damages at the rate of Rs.30,000/-from the date of the suit till the actual delivery of the suit properties and that the Court-fee of Rs.100/- has been paid on the plaint as sufficient Court-fee namely stamp papers were not available with the stamp vendor on that date and that the application under Section 149 of CPC praying for time to pay the balance of Court-fee has been filed and the same has been allowed on 14. 1994 whereby one month time has been granted to pay the deficit Court-fee, less Rs.100/-already paid and that one month time granted falls on 15. 1994 during summer vacation and that the Court after recess has to reopen on 6. 1994 and further than the plaint has been returned for various defects to be complied with, including the payment of deficit Court-fee and that the plaint has been re-presented on 24. 1994 within the time granted and necessary entry in the Court Fee Register has been made as 8480 and necessary endorsement on 24. 1994 has been made praying for time to pay the requisite deficit Court-fee assigning reason therefor but unfortunately the last sheet of the plaint containing all