The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction and the limitations on the defendant's right to move superior courts against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.

By way of the instant revision-petition, the petitioner-defendant (here-in-after to be referred as 'the defendant') has laid challenge to the order (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari (for short 'the trial Court') on 14.09.2023 in Civil Suit No.164 of 2023 titled as 'Rajeev Kumar Vs. Brij Mohan ', whereby his prayer for the rejection of plaint in view of the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been declined.

2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts emerging from the perusal of the file and culminating in the filing of the present revision petition, are that the respondent-plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiff') filed the afore-referred Civil Suit against the defendant for seeking a decree for the recovery of Rs. 19,20,000/-. In para No.8 of the plaint, he (plaintiff) categorically pleaded that the Court-fee worth Rs. 47,550/- was to be affixed on the plaint but due to insufficiency of the Court-fee stamps, the Suit was being filed with the stamp-paper worth Rs. 50/- and the remaining Court-fee would be paid/affixed later-on. Then, on 02.08.2023, he (plaintiff) moved application Annexure P-2 for making good the above-said deficiency of Rs. 47,500/- in the Court-fee and he submitted the same accordingly, as reflected in the order Annexure P-3 passed by the trial Court on that day. However, thereafter, on 31.08.2023, the defendant moved an application (Annexure P-5) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for seeking the rejection of the plaint, while claiming that the Court-fee worth Rs. 1,00,100/- was required to be paid/affixed thereon (plaint) in accordance with the amount sought to be recovered by the plaintiff in the Suit but he had failed to affix the same within the period of limitation as prescribed for filing the afore-said Suit and therefore, his claim had become time-barred. In the meantime, the plaintiff filed application Annexure P-7 for seeking permission to submit the Court fee of Rs. 52,650/- and averred therein that he was submitting the same, in view of the above-referred application, Annexure P-5 and just to avoid any controversy. The defendant resisted the same and prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground of the afore-mentioned Suit having become time-barred due to the delay in filing the Court-fee but vide the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected his above-said prayer, as already discussed in the opening para of this judgment.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant in the instant revision-petition, at the preliminary stage and have also gone through the file carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has contended that the plaintiff claims to have given the alleged amount to the defendant as loan, on 09.02.2020 and though he filed the afore-said Suit on 03.02.2023 but he had furnished/filed the requisite Court-fee on 14.09.2023 after the filing of application Annexure P-5 by the defendant for the rejection of the plaint, whereas the prescribed period of limitation to file the Suit had expired on 08.02.2023, i.e much prior thereto and therefore, the plaint deserved to be rejected on this score, as envisaged under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the verdicts rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K Palanisamy vs. N. Arumugham and another, SLP (Civil) No.2308 of 2009 decided on 23.07.2009 and K.C. Skaria vs. Govt. of State of Kerala and another 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 460.

5. However, the above-raised contentions are bereft of any force because as pointed out earlier, the plaintiff had specifically mentioned in para No.8 of the plaint that the appropriate Court-fee could not be affixed on the plaint due to insufficiency of the Court-fee stamps and as is explicit from order Annexure P-3, he had made the deficiency of the Court-fee good on 02.08.2023, by moving application Annexure P-2 in this regard. Though in the