Court has discretion under Section 149 to accept payment of deficit court fee at any stage, including after limitation, which cannot invalidate the suit if proper jurisdiction existed.

JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.77 of 2011, dated 14.03.2014, on the file of I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.41 of 2007, dated 30.09.2011, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit for recovery of the balance amount due from the defendants in respect of their commercial transactions.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is a partnership firm, in which the other plaintiffs are its partners, and that they are engaged in the business of sale of imported wooden logs. The defendants are also stated to be carrying on a similar line of business. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants purchased 16 wooden logs on various dates, namely, 12.04.2003, 07.05.2003 and 08.05.2003, under Invoice No.2003–2004/0005 dated 17.05.2003, for a total value of Rs.10,30,929/-. It is their further case that the transactions between the parties constituted a mutual, open and current account, and that a sum of Rs. 3,06,154/- remained due and payable by the defendants as on 20.08.2003. Despite repeated demands, the defendants failed to discharge the said liability. The plaintiffs therefore claim that they are entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said amount and, consequently, were constrained to institute the present suit for recovery of a total sum of Rs.4,69,476/-, together with future interest at 18% per annum on Rs.3,06,154/- and costs.

5. The defence of the defendants is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to them, the wooden logs were delivered at Tuticorin and no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdictional limits of Senkottai–Piranur border, and therefore, the Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is their further case that the wooden logs were supplied on 12.04.2003, 07.05.2003 and 08.05.2003 under invoice dated 17.05.2003, and that the suit, having been filed on 07.08.2006, is barred by limitation, as it was not instituted within the prescribed period of three years. They would also contend that the court fee on the plaint was paid only after the expiry of the limitation period. It is their specific defence that the entire amount due has already been paid and that no sum remains payable to the plaintiffs.Hence, according to the defendants, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. The defendants further contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the partners of the first defendant firm were not initially impleaded. In view of the said objection, the plaintiffs subsequently impleaded defendants 2 to 6 as partners of the first defendant firm.

7. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the pleadings of both parties, framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the amount claimed with interest?

3. To what other reliefs?”

8. During trial, the plaintiffs examined their Power Agent Thiru.James Selvaraj as P.W.1 and four other witnesses as P.W.2 to P.W.5 respectively and exhibited 14 documents as Exs.A.1 to A.14. The defendants examined the sixth defendant Thiru.Baskara Doss as D.W.1 and exhibited two documents as Exs.B.1 and B.2. Six witness documents came to be exhibited as Exs.X.1 t