SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Online)(SC) 2883

SUPREME COURT
, CJ
Raju Thomas and Others v. Devu and Others


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: learned counsel
For the Respondents: learned counsel

Table of Content
1. court's discretion in accepting late court fees (Para 3 , 5)
2. arguments related to intentionality of default (Para 4)
3. restoration of suit proceedings and final order (Para 6 , 8)

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has affirmed the trial court's refusal to accept the balance amount of court fee offered by the appellants - plaintiffs, being beyond the time prescribed by law. The appellants - plaintiffs had filed the suit initially with court fee of Rs. 9,840/- and balance of deficit court fees of Rs.88,560/- was to be paid. The learned trial court fixed 2.7.2013 for the payment of the balance court fee. However, according to the appellants - plaintiffs, their learned counsel erroneously recorded the date as 2.8.2013 instead of 2.7.2013 and informed them (appellants - plaintiffs) to do the needful. Finding that neither the appellants - plaintiffs were represented on 2.7.2013 nor the balance court fee deposited, the learned trial court rejected the plaint under O.7 R.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was thereafter that an application was filed by the appellants - plaintiffs detailing the





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top