JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff in O.S.No.86 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. The appellant filed the said suit on the strength of Ex.A1-pro-note dated 05.01.2001. According to the appellant, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him and executed the pro-note. The appellant issued Ex.A2-suit notice dated 16.06.2003. Though the defendant received the same as evidenced by the acknowledgment card-Ex.A3 dated 19.06.2003, the defendant did not reply. Hence, the suit was filed for recovering a sum of Rs.1,76,925/- with interest. The defendant filed his written statement denying the plaint averments. The defendant submitted that he had dealings only with the son-in-law of the plaintiff. According to the defendant, when he borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/-, he signed in a blank pro-note. He made a further claim that the said amount was returned. But then, the signed blank pro-note was not given back to him. He also claimed that after receiving the suit notice, he met the plaintiff in person who assured that he would not pursue the matter.

3. The plaint was filed on 02.01.2004. There is no doubt that it was filed within the limitation period. But then, the entire Court fee payable was not paid. The trial Court had granted time to pay the deficit Court fee. It appears that even within the extended time, the Court fee was not paid. Thereafter, an application was filed for condoning the delay in paying the deficit Court fee. It appears that no formal order was passed on the said application. But the suit was numbered and taken on file on 24.03.2004. The trial Court had originally dismissed the suit only on the ground of limitation. The same was challenged by the plaintiff in appeal. The first Appellate Court had remanded the matter by directing the trial Court to answer all the issues. The first Appellate Court noted that the application for condoning the delay in paying the deficit Court fee was not numbered. The trial Court was directed to number the said IA and thereafter, answer the issue regarding limitation. The trial Court was called upon to answer the other issues also. Post remand, the trial Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in paying the deficit Court fee for two reasons:-

(a) The petition was supported by an affidavit sworn to by the advocate-clerk and not by the party concerned.

(b) No specific petition under Section 149 of C.P.C., was filed.

The suit came to be dismissed by Judgment and decree dated 02.06.2008. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.33 of 2008 before the Principal District Court, Dindigul. By the impugned Judgment and decree dated 01.03.2010, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

4. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation is legally sustainable?”

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the substantial question of law arising for consideration in this second appeal is no longer res integra in view of the following decisions:-

“2009 (6) CTC 92 (Mahalingam Vs. K. Krishnasamy Naidu)

1926 (51) MLJ 90 (Kolisetti Basavayya and others Vs. Mittapalli Venkatappayya and another)

1994 AIR Kerala 405 (V.O. Devassy Vs. Periyar Credits)

2016 (4) CTC 880 (K. Dhanavelu Vs. K.S.M. Venugopal)

2003 (3) L.W. 803 (K. Natarajan Vs. P.K. Rajasekaran)

2015 (5) CTC 865 (V.P. Venkatachalam Vs. N. Venkatachalam)”

7. A mere look at the aforesaid decisions would yield the proposition that the Court has the power to permit the plaintiff to make up deficiency of Court fee. Even if the plaintiff fails to do so within the time granted, still the time-limit can subsequently be extended. It is not necessary that formal order should be passed indicating such enlargement of time. The numbering of the suit and tak