O R D E R

This Petition has been filed to set aside the Order and decretal order of the learned V Assistant Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.6736 of 2006.

2. The Plaintiff is the Petitioner in this Revision Petition. The Plaintiff in O.S.No.6736 of 2006 had filed the Suit seeking declaration to cancel the sale deed dated 23.06.2003 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of first Defendant viz., R.Dhanraj, registered as Document No.1912 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Villivakkam, Chennai is invalid and liable to be de-credited and removed from the encumbrances created thereon. It is the averment in the plaint that the Defendants had played fraud on the Plaintiffs. When the Plaintiffs approached the Defendants' relatives for a loan to execute the sale agreement in favour of the Defendants and based on the sale agreement, it was registered. Based on the sale agreement, the Defendants promised to pay balance amount and executed the sale deed. Therefore, the Plaintiff was constrained to initiate the criminal prosecution against the Defendants.

2.1. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that another Suit was filed by the Wife of the Plaintiff against the very same Defendants in O.S.No.4460 of 2003 which is objected up to the level of Second Appeal and the second Appeal is pending before this Court for declaration of the sale deed as null and void. The Plaintiff had filed the value of the Suit for the relief of declaration under Section 25 (d) of Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The trial proceeded up to the stage of arguments. At that stage, the Plaintiff as Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2019 sought to amend the Plaint regarding the valuation of the Suit relief by filing the Petition under Section 149 of Civil Procedure Code. After due enquiry, the Respondents had vehemently objected to the amendment stating that the Suit is of the year 2006 and the Interlocutory Application is of the year 2018, after the delay of more than 13 years. It is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Petition is to be dismissed. After due enquiry, the learned Assistant Judge -V had passed Orders in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.6736 of 2006 dated 09.03.2020 dismissing the Petition under Sections 151 and 153 of Civil Procedure Code.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff had approached this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India to prevent abuse of process of Court and to uphold the justice to protect the right of the Plaintiff regarding the claim made against the property and to bring the dispute to its logical end after completing the adjudication in the Suit.

4. The Defendants as Respondents in Interlocutory Application objected the same as there is a deficit Court fee and the deficit Court fee had to be paid before the commencement of trial. The learned Counsel for the Respondents had relied on the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

(i) Civil Appeal Nos.4838 & 4840 of 2012 in the case of A.Nawab John & ors Vs. V.N.Subramaniyam, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

34. That leads us to the next question regarding the legal character of Section 149. Is it provision conferring authority on the Court to call upon a Plaintiff to make payment of Court fee which was found to be due but short paid on the Plaint or is it a provision conferring a right on the Plaintiff to make good the deficit Court Fee at any point of time irrespective of the provisions of the law of limitation and other provisions and principles of law.

(ii) Appeal (Civil) No.5285 of 1995 in the case of Buta Singh (Dead) by L. Rs. Vs. Union of India, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

Shri Ujjagar Singh also placed reliance on Section 149 of C.P.C. and contended that the Court can always permit the appellant to pay the deficit court fee and the High Court, therefore, was not right in refusing to accept the deficit court fee.

Having given anxious consideration to the respective contentions, question arises whether the claimants woul