2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18306
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
RAJENDRAN – Appellant
Versus
PRADEEP – Respondent
FAO 84 2023
JOSEPH GEORGE, P.A. REJIMON, NIKITA NAIR, C.S. SAJEEV, JOHN T.
Discretion under Section 149 of the Code allows courts to permit late payment of court fees, which should be considered in light of circumstances presented.
Headnote:
Court Fees - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order IX, Rule 9; Order VII, Rule 11(c); Section 149 - The court emphasized the discretion afforded in Section 149 to allow payment of court fees at any stage, impacting the decision to restore the dismissed suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff's suit was dismissed for non-payment of court fees after failing to comply with an extension. He appealed against the dismissal order, citing his age and health.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the dismissal of the suit for default was improper as there were provisions allowing fee payment and extensions, and emphasized that due consideration of circumstances should be given.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the suit for default due to non-payment of court fees was legally justified given the circumstances and available provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 149, the court has discretion to allow payment of court fees at any stage and should consider the merits of an application for extension of time.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed; the dismissal order is set aside, and the suit is to be restored upon payment of balance court fees.
JUDGMENT
P .G. Ajithkumar, J.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.21 of 2018 before the Sub Court, Karunagappilly is the appellant. He is aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.10 of 2021, which he had filed under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to restore the suit that was dismissed for non-payment of the court fees.
2. There was a delay of 442 days in filing this appeal.
As per the order dated 23.08.2023 in C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2023, the delay was condoned. Despite giving notice, the respondent did not choose to appear before this court.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
4. The appellant filed O.S.No.21 of 2018 for a decree of realisation of money. The suit was listed on 03.04.2021 for making payment of the balance court fees due on the plaint; since 1/10th court fees was alone paid at the time of institution. The appellant failed to make payment of the balance court fees and therefore the suit was dismissed for default on the said date. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the request of the appellant to grant some more time to make payment of the balance court fees was rejected by the court below and consequently the suit was dismissed. The court below stated in the impugned order that 30 days more time was granted for making payment of the court fees, but the appellant failed to remit and in such circumstances, there was no other go, but to dismiss the suit. In I.A.No.10 of 2021 also, the same stand was taken and consequently that petition was dismissed by the court below.
5. The appellant would submit that being a person aged 75 years at that time, having many ailments, his request for more time should have been granted by the court below. This is not a case where there occurred inordinate delay on the part of the appellant. When the respondent/defendant filed written statement contesting the plaint, issues were framed by the court and therefore the appellant was obliged to remit the balance court fees within the time prescribed or the extended time. If the court fees is not paid within time, the option for the court was not to dismiss the suit for default, but rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code. Therefore, the order dismissing the suit for default was not strictly legal. That apart, when sufficient reasons are furnished, the court has to consider the request on its merits; since power for enlargement of time for remitting balance court fees is invested in court under Section 149 of the Code. It is seen that without considering the matter in its proper perspective, the court below proceeded to dismiss the suit for default. In a peremptory manner dismissed I.A.No.10 of 2021 also. We are therefore of the view that the impugned order dated 24.01.2022 dismissing I.A.No.10 of 2021 is liable to be set aside.
6. In Maya Rani v. Aboobacker Siddique [2022 (1) KLJ 94 : 2021 (5) KLT OnLine 1052 ] this Court held that,-
“21. Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with power to make up deficiency of court fees. As per , where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to court-fees has not been paid, the court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of such court-fee; and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance.”
7. In view of the aforesaid position of law, we are of the view that the court below can be directed to restore O.S.No.21 of 2018 on file if the appellant remits the balance court fees within a reasonable time.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order dated
24.01.2022 in I.A.No.10 of 2021 in O.S.No.21 of 2018 of the Sub Court, Karunagappally is set aside. The appellant shall remit the balance court fees within two weeks from the date of getting a