Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4702
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
P. Singaravel & Another
Versus
Ammani Ammal & Others
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) Nos.1755 to 1757 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 in all CRPs.
Decided On :Decided on : 09-12-2011
For the Petitioner - T.A. Srinivasan, Advocate.
For the Respondents - T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s. T.R. Rajaraman, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion under Section 149 CPC must be exercised in accordance with the principles of law, and notice should be given to the defendants when court fee is not paid in time.
Headnote:
Court Fees - Payment of Deficit Court Fee - Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1955 - The court considered the delay in payment of deficit court fee and the application of Section 149 CPC. The court referred to various decisions including the Butta Singh case and the K.Natarajan case to determine the validity of the appeals. The Division Bench held that notice should be given to the defendants when court fee is not paid in time and that the discretion under Section 149 CPC must be exercised in accordance with the principles of law. The court found that the delay in payment of court fees rendered the appeals bad at their inception and dismissed the revision petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed specific performance suits to enforce agreements of sale, which were dismissed. The plaintiff filed appeals with deficit court fees, which were returned for re-presentation. The defendants filed applications to reject the appeals due to substantial delay in payment of deficit court fee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in payment of court fees rendered the appeals bad at their inception and dismissed the revision petitions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in payment of deficit court fee rendered the appeals invalid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretion under Section 149 CPC must be exercised in accordance with the principles of law and that notice should be given to the defendants when court fee is not paid in time. The delay in payment of court fees rendered the appeals bad at their inception.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions, finding no merit. No costs were awarded.
1. The Civil Revision Petition No.1755 of 2009 is filed challenging the order dated 27.4.2007 passed in I.A.No.56 of 2007 in A.S.No.112 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem and consequently restore the appeal in A.S.No.112 of 2005 to the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem.
2. The Civil Revision Petition No.1756 of 2009 is filed challenging the order dated 27.4.2007 passed in I.A.No.57 of 2007 in A.S.No.66 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem and consequently restore the appeal in A.S.No.66 of 2006 to the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem.
3. The Civil Revision Petition No.1757 of 2009 is filed challenging the order dated 27.4.2007 passed in I.A.No.58 of 2007 in A.S.No.120 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem and consequently restore the appeal in A.S.No.120 of 2005 to the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem.
4. Thiru P.Singaravel is the plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 1996; Tmt.Vijaya Singaravel is the plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 1996 and O.S.No.48 of 1996. All the three specific performance suits have been filed to enforce the agreement of sale dated 13.4.1992, 11.11.1992 and 11.11.1992 respectively. On contest, the three suits O.S.N.46 of 1996, 50 of 1996 and 48 of 1996 came to be dismissed on 25.4.2005. The unsuccessful plaintiff/revision petitioner filed copy applications and on receipt of certified copies of decrees and judgments filed the appeals paying a court fee of Rs.10/-in Appeal Suit No.112 of 2005 and Rs.10/- in Appeal Suit No.120 of 2005 and nil in the case of Appeal Suit No.66 of 2006, whereas the relevant court fee payable is indicated in the detailed chart filed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as set out below:
5. The Appeal Suits came to be returned by the appellate court on various dates mentioned as above for re-presentation granting four weeks time. The appeals came to be re-presented subsequently and the deficit court fee was paid on 5.10.2005 in Appeal Suit No.112 of 2005; on 21.9.2006 in Appeal Suit No.66 of 2006 and on 11.11.2005 in Appeal Suit No.120 of 2005. The appeals were taken up on file on 1.12.2005, 12.10.2006 and 20.12.2005 respectively. The delay in payment of deficit court fee is as follows:-
A.S.No.112 of 2005 - 75 days
A.S.No.66 of 2006 - 112 days
A.S.No.120 of 2005 - 426 days
6. Thereafter, the respondents herein, the defendants in the suits filed I.A.No.56 of 2007 in A.S.No.112 of 2005; I.A.No.57 of 2007 in A.S.No.66 of 2006 and I.A.No.58 of 2007 in A.S.No.120 of 2005 under Section 151 CPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1955 praying to reject the appeals as one not properly and validly presented. In the I.As., filed in the appeals, the main plea taken by the present respondents/defendants in the suits is that there is substantial delay in payment of deficit court fee and the revision petitioner/plaintiff did not chose to file an application under Section 149 CPC to condone the delay in payment of the proper court fee, more particularly, when the appeals were returned on the ground of deficit court fee.
7. According to the defendants, the respondents herein, the court should have ordered notice to the defendants before granting time to the revision petitioner/plaintiff for paying deficit court fee in the appeals. The procedure adopted by the court below allowing the revision petitioner/plaintiff to pay deficit court fee without an application in terms of Section 149 CPC is not in accordance with law, legal or valid.
8. The said applications came to be resisted by the revision petitioner herein, appellant before the Court below. It is, however, fairly admitted by the revision petitioner that no application in terms of Section 149 CPC has been filed to state the reason for payment of deficit court fee in all the three cases, beyond time.
9. The Court below referring to various decisions, m
