The rejection of a plaint for non-payment of court fees does not automatically bar the plaintiff from filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The term "sufficient cause" in Section 5 should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30-09-2001, by which the appeal has been allowed and the suit has been sent to the Court below for the payment of the Court fees and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has already been allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent Sri R K. Agarwal being Suit No. 311 of 1995.

3. By the present suit, the plaintiff/respondent has claimed relief for recovery of Rs. 55220/- along with Interest @ 18% per annum.

4. Briefly stated the plaint case was that the plaintiff is doing the business of the property agent and the defendant no. 2 has been doing the business of sale and purchase of the properties in the name of the defendant no. 1 namely Smt. Rukhsana Umar and the defendant no.2 Sri Mohd. Umar, is her husbend. The plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 11-10-1991 by cheque no. 645175 in the name of the District Cooperative Bank, Main Branch, Dehradun. For the repayment of the said amount, the defendant no. 2 Sri Moin Umar had given a post dated cheque bearing no. 000725 dated 10-1-1992 to the plaintiff for Rs. 55,000/- and thereafter, another cheque no. 063163 dated 25-11-1992 for Rs. 55,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India in lieu of the aforesaid cheque was given to the plaintiff.

5. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the aforesaid cheque could not be presented for encashment as the defendant has promised to pay the amount in cash. However, the said amount was not paid and ultimately in paragraph 7 of the plaint, it has been mentioned that notice, which was sent to the defendant by post, had been received back with the postal record unclaimed return to the sender. The plaint was presented on 24-11-1995, however, the same was dismissed for non payment of the court fees. It was registered as Misc. Case No. 311 of 1995 without the payment of the court-fees and the same was dismissed on 3-12-1996 for non-payment of the court-fees.

6. An order was passed on 22-10-1999, by which the plaintiff was deprived of an opportunity to pay the court-fees on the plaint. The plaint was rejected on 3-12-1996 with the following order :-

"Prarthi Dwara Nyayashulk Dakhil Naheen Kiya Gaya Adesh Hua Ki 3-B is dismissed for want of prosecution."

7. The order dated 3-12-1996 was sought to be recalled by the plaintiff as the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. The plaintiff has filed an application for setting aside the order dated 3-12-1996. The said application was rejected on 22-10-1999 only on the ground that since the court fees has not been paid for a long time, therefore, the plaint was rejected.

8.The operative portion of the order Is quoted below:-

** fu’p; gh U;kf;d izfØ;k ds varxZr iSjoh djus okyks ds izfr lgkuqHkwfe dk :[k U;k;ky; dks gksuk pkfg;s ijarq tc dksbZ O;fDr tkucw>dj bldk nq:i;ksx djs vkSj fof/kd izfØ;k viukus esa vlR; vk/kkjksa dk iz;ksx djs rks mlds i{k esa lgkuqHkwfr dk iz’u ugha gSA ,slh n’kk esa eSa bl fu”d”kZ ij igqapk gw¡ fd izk0 i= 5 x Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA vkSj ;g fof/kd okn dky ckf/kr gksus rFkk mfpr dkj.kksa ds vk/kkj ij u gksus ds dkj.k [akfMr gksus ;ksX; gSA**

9. The application was also accompanied with Section 5 of the limitation Act. Plaintiff has also stated In his application following grounds:-

2. That the applicant throughout remained worried not only on account of financial problems but also on account of various other problems, as stated here under which was beyond his control.

3. That Smt. Parul Agarwal, d/o applicant suffered from various diseases for a sufficiently long time, and now she has been suffering from Cancer.

4. That in addition the father of the applicant, who is about 85 years of age, and is at Chandigarh, has also been suffering from various diseases, and the applicant being his son has also been looking after him.

5. That the applicant in addition to incurring sufficient expenditure of the aforesaid r