The court emphasized the importance of compliance with court directions and held that the delay in representation of the plaint could be excused under Section 151, CPC.

1. Therevision petitioner is the plaintiff in an unnumbered OS of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif, Arni.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note. The plaint was returned and the same was represented after 457 days. An application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to condone the delay and the same was dismissed by the trial court by the order dated 27.9.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this revision petition.

3. The plaintiff, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, has stated that the plaint was returned and the same was misplaced with the other bundles and only in the said circumstances, the same could not be represented in time and the same was represented after 457 days and the delay in representation of the plaint was not wanton and deliberate.

4. The respondent, in his counter, has stated that the delay cannot be condoned and there was no merit in the petition.

5. The trial court, in its order, had observed that the plaint was filed by affixing court fee to the value of Rs.2. The plaint was returned, granting three weeks' time for the payment of deficit court fees. The plaintiff, after affixing the court fee, represented the plaint on 5.10.1998 and there was a delay of 457 days. The plaint was returned on 9.10.1998 for filing a petition under Section 149, CPC granting 15 days time and as per the court direction, the plaintiff filed a petition under Section 149, CPC to condone the delay of 457 days, within 15 days. The court ordered notice and the defendant also filed his counter and both of them were considered by the court and it was of the view that the petition one under Section 149, CPC was not filed at the time of representation of the plaint and dismissed the petition.

6. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the plaint was presented with the deficit court fee and the same was returned, granting three weeks' time. The petitioner did not comply with the same. But, however, when the plaint was represented after some time, the entire court fee was paid and the plaint was represented on 9.10.1998. After having received the plaint, the court itself returned the plaint with a direction, directing the plaintiff to file an application under Section 149, CPC granting 15 days time and the same was complied with by the plaintiff within time. As such, the plaintiff has complied with the order of this court. But, however, the delay caused originally in representing the plaint has got to be condoned, for which, the plaintiff had made an application and the same was dismissed. It is submitted that the delay in representation was bona fide and the order passed by the trial court is not proper.

7. The learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that no sufficient reasons were given for the delay in representing the plaint and therefore, argued in support of the order passed by the trial court.

8. It is not in dispute that initially the plaint was presented in time and the same was returned for certain compliance. The plaintiff after complying with the directions of the court, including the payment of deficit court fee, represented the plaint with a petition to condone the delay of 457 days. After representation of the plaint, the court returned the plaint on a particular date granting 15 days time directing the plaintiff to file a petition under Section 149, CPC and the same was complied with by the plaintiff within time. But, however, the application filed by the plaintiff to condone the delay of 457 days in representing the plaint was dismissed.

9. Now the question that has got to be answered by this court is as to whether the order passed by the trial court in dismissing the petition is in order?

10. The plaint, which was returned for certain compliance, was not represented in time. But, however, the plaint was represented after compliance, along with a petition to condone the delay of 457 days and