B S SANTHILAL Vs. J SAMIDURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, on 24.09.2007, dismissing the I.A. No. 253 of 2006 in unnumbered O.S. Of 2006 and rejecting the plaint.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Defendants/Respondents herein borrowed Rs. 3,60,000/- and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and executed a promissory note on 05.10.2001. The first Defendant/first Respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 30,000/-, dated 04.11.2001, which was dishonoured as "Funds Insufficient". Hence, the Plaintiff/first Petitioner filed a suit on 04.10.2004 for recovery of money due on the promissory note, but the same has been returned for payment of deficit court fee and to rectify the defect, two weeks time has been granted. But, the Plaintiff/first Petitioner has not rectified the defect and represented the plaint in time. He filed the application in I.A. No. 253 of 2006 under Section 151 of Code of Code of Civil Procedure to condone the delay of 729 days in representing the plaint. The application in I.A. No. 253 of 2006 was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, by the impugned order dated 24.09.2007, observing that no application under Section 149 of Code of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed to extend the time for payment of court fee, so the plaint has been rejected. Hence, it is against law. The Court ought to have given an opportunity to the Petitioner to file an application under Section 149 Code of Code of Civil Procedure To substantiate his claim, he relied upon the decision Mansoor and Ors. v. Bagavathi Ammal, 2009 4 MadLJ 505, Umesh Challiyil v. K.P. Rajendran, 2009 4 MadLJ 505; State of M.P. and Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar and Anr., 2008 AIR(SC) 1577, Bhuvaneswari v. R. Elumalai, 2000 7 SCC 372; and prayed for allowing of the Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents would contend that the suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,19,250/- due on the promissory note. The Court fee ought to have been paid is Rs. 46,444.25. He paid only Rs. 100/- and he filed the suit on 04.10.2004 viz., the last date of limitation, without paying the proper Court fee. The plaint has been returned on 05.10.2004, giving two weeks time for paying the deficit court fee and also for rectifying the other defects. But, it was represented only on 18.10.2006 at District Court, without filing a petition to extend the time for payment of the Court fee. He ought to have filed a petition under Section 149 Code of Code of Civil Procedure to extend the time for payment of court fee. To substantiate his case, he relied upon the decisions K. Natarajan v. P.K. Rajasekaran, 2003 2 MadLJ 305; V.N. Subramaniyam v. A. Nawab John and Ors., 2007 1 MadLJ 669, S.V. Arjunaraja v. P. Vasantha, 2005 5 CTC 401; and Dhanalakshmi Financiers v. Soundarammal and Ors.,2009 1 MadLJ 1328 and prayed for the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.