REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

NATARAJAN Appellant

V/S

Jacob Manohar Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

R.S. PILLAI V. R.K. AMBALAM [REFERRED TO]
MURTHIRAJU V. SUBBARAJU [REFERRED TO]
SBHUVANESWARI V. R. ELUMALAI AND [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR S S KHANNA IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. BRIG F J DILLON IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHER SINGH VS. RAJINDER PRASHAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MIRZAPUR MOTI KURESHI KASSAB JAMAT [REFERRED TO]
CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY NEW DELHI VS. RAMESHWAR DAYAL [REFERRED TO]
VASU VS. CHAKKI MANI [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED KANI ROWTHER VS. HASSAN ROWTHER BULGHESE BEEVI [REFERRED TO]
N ARUMUGHAM VS. M K PONNUSAMY [REFERRED TO]
BHUVANESWARI VS. R ELUMALAI [REFERRED TO]
K S GEETHA VS. STANLEYBUCK [REFERRED TO]
G MURUGAN VS. MANICKAM [REFERRED TO]
G MURUGAN VS. MANICKAM [REFERRED TO]
A SAKTHIVEL VS. V A SHANMOGAVEL [REFERRED TO]
K NATARAJAN VS. P K RAJASEKARAN [REFERRED TO]
P M GOPALASAMY VS. C SENPAGAM [REFERRED TO]
A GURUNATHAN ALIAS SIVAJI VS. J MUTHULAKSHMI [REFERRED TO]
P KUMAR VS. SANJAY AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
VEERAPPAN VS. RAMAMOORTHY [REFERRED TO]
S V ARJUNARAJA VS. P VASANTHA [REFERRED TO]
S MANOHARAN VS. T MAYAKKANNAN [REFERRED TO]
R. SHANMUGHAVELU PILLAI VS. R. KARUPPANNAN AMBALAM [REFERRED TO]
MANOHARAN VS. SIVARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
MANOHARAN VS. SIVARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDARAJAN PADAYATCHI VS. PREMANANDA VIJAYAKUMAR @ PREM ANAND [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in I.A. No. 96 of 2006 in O.S. No. 86 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli dated 19.07.2006.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the plaintiff, whereas the respondent is the defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 86 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondent, the petitioner paid only Rs. 5,500/ - as Court fee at the time of filing the suit as against the Court fee payable by him. The petitioner did not comply with the directions of the Court to pay the deficit Court fee for more than 10 months and ultimately the Court fee was paid on 10.05.2006 without any permission from the Court under Section 149 C.P.C. and hence the suit is not valid in law. When the Court did not extend the time for payment of Court fee mere payment of Court fee beyond the period of limitation is not valid in law and will not extend the period of limitation. On these grounds, the respondent prayed for rejection of the plaint.

Click here to view full judgment.

NATARAJAN Vs. JACOB MANOHAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address