T. ARUMUGAM Vs. N. NAMPERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.86 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, is the appellant in this second appeal.

(2.) The appellant filed the said suit on the strength of Ex.A1-pro-note dated 05.01.2001. According to the appellant, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from him and executed the pro-note. The appellant issued Ex.A2-suit notice dated 16.06.2003. Though the defendant received the same as evidenced by the acknowledgment card-Ex.A3 dated 19.06.2003, the defendant did not reply. Hence, the suit was filed for recovering a sum of Rs. 1,76,925/- with interest. The defendant filed his written statement denying the plaint averments. The defendant submitted that he had dealings only with the son-in-law of the plaintiff. According to the defendant, when he borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/-, he signed in a blank pro-note. He made a further claim that the said amount was returned. But then, the signed blank pro-note was not given back to him. He also claimed that after receiving the suit notice, he met the plaintiff in person who assured that he would not pursue the matter.

(3.) The plaint was filed on 02.01.2004. There is no doubt that it was filed within the limitation period. But then, the entire Court fee payable was not paid. The trial Court had granted time to pay the deficit Court fee. It appears that even within the extended time, the Court fee was not paid. Thereafter, an application was filed for condoning the delay in paying the deficit Court fee. It appears that no formal order was passed on the said application. But the suit was numbered and taken on file on 24.03.2004. The trial Court had originally dismissed the suit only on the ground of limitation. The same was challenged by the plaintiff in appeal. The first Appellate Court had remanded the matter by directing the trial Court to answer all the issues. The first Appellate Court noted that the application for condoning the delay in paying the deficit Court fee was not numbered. The trial Court was directed to number the said IA and thereafter, answer the issue regarding limitation. The trial Court was called upon to answer the other issues also. Post remand, the trial Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in paying the deficit Court fee for two reasons:-