ORDER :

PRAYER in C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.259 of 2012: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, in I.A.No.360 of 2009 in O.S.No.165 of 2008, dated 07.07.2010.

PRAYER in C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.1010 of 2012: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, in Unnumbered I.A. No. /2008 in O.S.No.165 of 2008, dated 28.08.2008.

C.R.P.(MD) No.259 of 2012 has been filed against the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(3) CPC.

2. C.R.P.(MD) No.1010 of 2012 has been filed against the order passed by the Court below extending the period of 15 days for payment of Court fee.

3. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondents filed a suit claiming for the relief of recovery of money against the petitioner. It is seen from the records that the respondents had filed the suit without paying the entire Court fee and that they filed an application before the Court below under Section 149 CPC to grant 15 days time for paying the entire Court fee. The Court below allowed the application and granted 15 days time to pay the entire Court fee. It is seen that the extension of time was granted only after the limitation period was over and this order was passed without giving notice to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner had also filed an independent application seeking for rejection of plaint on the ground that the relief sought for against the petitioner is barred by limitation.

5. The Court below, in view of the fact that it had already granted extension of time for payment of Court fee, dismissed the application for rejection of plaint, since the suit has been filed before the period of limitation and by payment of balance Court fee within the extended time, the suit will be deemed to have been filed within limitation and it will date back to the date on which the suit was actually filed by the respondents.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below committed an illegality in passing the order under Section 149 of C.P.C., by extending the period for payment of entire Court fee without giving notice to the petitioner. The learned Counsel, in order to substantiate his submissions, relied upon the following judgments:

(1) K. Natarajan vs. P.K. Rajasekaran ((2003) 2 M.L.J. 305)

(2) Sennan vs. Shoba and another (2011 (1) L.W. 832)

(3) P. Singaravel and another vs. Ammani Ammal and others ((2012) 2 MLJ 906)

(4) Rafeeque Ahmed vs. C. Lickmichand Jain and others (2014 (1) L.W. 883)

7. The learned Counsel would further submit that in view of the judgments that have been cited by him, the order passed by the Court below, under Section 149 CPC, is liable to be set aside. Once, the order is set aside, the learned Counsel contended that the order passed in the application for rejection of plaint must also be set aside and the case has to be remitted back to the Court below to consider the same afresh, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the suit was filed within the period of limitation and a portion of the Court fee was also paid. The balance of the Court fee was sought to be paid after seeking for extension of time by fling an application under Section 149 CPC and that the Court below has also granted 15 days time to pay the balance Court fee. This order has been complied with and the balance Court fee has also been paid and therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The learned Counsel further submitted that the limitation is always a mixed question of fact, and law and unless, the suit is apparently barred by limitation, t