The plaintiff must offer a legally acceptable explanation for not paying the court fee within the period of limitation, and the court has discretionary power to permit the payment of court fee at a later point in time.

1. Inveighing the order dated 02.07.2010, passed by the Additional District cum Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, in I.A.No.55 of 2008 in O.S.No.14 of 2006, this civil revision petition is filed.

2. The petitioner is the third defendant, in O.S.No.14 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Court-Fact Track Court, Tirupattur. The first respondent herein, filed the suit for specific performance, on the basis of an agreement, dated 10.2.2002.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Indisputably, respondents 2 and 3 herein had entered into an agreement, with the first respondent, on 10.2.2002, agreeing to sell their land, to an extent of 11.59 acres, for a consideration of Rs.16,22,600/- and on the date of the agreement, an advance amount of Rs.1,22,600/- was paid to them. The first respondent filed the suit, on 30.3.2005, seeking specific performance of the agreement, to an extent of 4.17 acres of land. The suit was returned for rectifying some defects, including payment of deficit Court fee, on 1.4.2005. The first respondent, re-presented the suit papers, without paying the deficit Court fee, on 19.6.2006. The registry of the lower Court again returned the suit papers for compliance of defects, on 26.6.2006, and the first respondent again re-presented, the suit papers, without paying the deficit Court fee, on 25.7.2006. Therefore, the suit papers were once again returned, on 31.7.2006, and the same was re-presented, on 21.8.2006, without payment of deficit Court fee; On 24.8.2006, the registry of the lower Court returned the suit papers, to comply with the earlier returns and the papers were re-presented on the same day, but without complying with the defects. Eventually, on 07.9.2006, the first respondent/plaintiff made good the deficit Court fee and re-presented the papers, whereupon the suit was numbered.

4. The petitioner seems to have purchased the property, on 18.9.2006, from respondents 2 and 3 and on the petition filed by the first respondent, the petitioner was impleaded in the suit as third defendant, on 25.9.2007.

5. The trial of the suit had commenced, on 16.9.2008 and when the suit was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.55 of 2008, under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. to strike off the plaint. The learned trial Judge dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed.

6. Heard Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and perused records.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent filed the suit, on 30.3.2005, with a Court fee of Rs.500/-, when he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.43,785/- and the registry of the lower Court had returned the suit papers for paying the deficit Court fee, on 1.4.2005, but after expiry of about 1 ½ years, the first respondent paid the deficit Court fee, on 07.09.2006. Though there were enormous delay in remitting the Court fee, the fist respondent/plaintiff did not file any application, under Section 149 of C.P.C., for extension of time to pay the deficit Court fee. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and the subsequent remittance of the Court fee, will not cure the defect, unless the period is specifically condoned by the Court. The learned counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no explanation for remitting the deficit Court fee after 1 ½ years. Therefore, the plaint is liable to be struck off under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The learned counsel replied upon the judgments the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court reported in (i) 2012 (4) CTC 206 – A.Nawab John & Others v. V.N.Subramaniam (ii)2005 (5) CTC 401 – S.V.Arjunaraja vs. P.Vasantha, (iii) 2007 (3) CTC 144 – V.N.Subramaniyam vs. A.Nawab John and 5 others, (iv) (2010) 6 MLJ 16-B.S.Santhilal (deceased) and Others v. J.Samidurai and Another for the proposition