V N SUBRAMANIYAM Vs. A NAWAB JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner who is a subsequent purchaser of the suit property and impleaded as the second defendant in the suit suit, has filed these revisions as against the allowing of the I. A. Nos:75 and 76 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, which have been filed to condone the delay of 585 days and 1328 days respectively in representing the Plaint with deficit court fee and also against the dismissal of his I. A. NO. 3 of 2006 filed for rejection of the Plaint, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court-IV), Bhavani.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner who is the 2nd defendant in the suit purchased the land from Vadivelu, the power agent of the sixth respondent on 8. 4. 1999. The respondents/plaintiffs 1 to 5 filed a suit for specific performance against the 6th respondent/1st defendant on 20. 8. 1998 before the Sub Court, Bhavani based on the agreement dated 22. 3. 1995. The respondents/plaintiffs ought to have paid a court fee of Rs. 96,603/= for the relief sought for. But they paid only Rs. 2000/= and on 24. 8. 1998 the Plaint was returned for certain defects, including the deficit court fee. For compliance of the same, three weeks time was granted. But the plaint was represented only on 3. 5. 2002 with a petition u/s. 148 and 151 CPC to condone the delay of 1328 days. Again the plaint was returned on 3. 6. 2002 for non compliance of the earlier queries and also the deficit court fee. Again two weeks time was granted for rectifying the defects. But the Plaint was represented only on 22. 1. 2004 with a petition under Section 148 and 151 CPC to condone the delay of 585 days in representation and the two I. A. Nos:75 and76 of 2004 were allowed on 22. 1. 2004. The plaint was returned on the same ay ie. . , on 22. 1. 2004 due to some defects and two weeks time was given to comply with the defects. But the plaintiffs represented the Plaint only on 9. 4. 2004 with a petition to condone the delay of 70 days before the District Court, Erode due to pecuniary jurisdiction and the suit was numbered as O. S. No. 100 of 2004. The sixth respondent was set ex parte. The petitioner, on his petition was impleaded by orders dated 9. 3. 2005 in I. A. No. 1532 of 2004. According to the revision petitioner, the plaintiffs failed to invoke Section 149 CPC to enlarge the time for payment of deficit court fee. Hence the plaint filed by the respondents 1 to 5 in O. S. No. 4 of 2005 is liable to be rejected.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the the respondents/plaintiffs contended that the suit was originally filed and numbered only against the sixth respondent Sengoda Gounder. As the sixth respondent did not file any written statement, he was set ex parte and the case was posted for ex parte evidence on 5. 10. 2004. At that time only, the revision petitioner has filed the I. A. , for his impleadment since he purchased the suit property on 8. 3. 1999 and he has no locus standi to raise any objection to the condonation of the delay. Further the plaintiffs did not have the knowledge of the purchase by the revision petitioner and the purchase is not binding on them. The alleged sale by the revision petitioner is only a sham and nominal transaction. The plaintiffs have entered into agreement with the 6th respondent on 22. 3. 1995 for a sum of Rs. 13,31,663/= for sale of the suit property and they have made several payments. After paying the deficit court fees by taking out condonation applications, the delay was excused and the plaint was numbered by the District Court due to pecuniary jurisdiction as O. S. No:100 of 2004 and transferred to the file of the Addl. District Court (FTC-IV), Bhavani and renumbered as O. S. No: 4 of 2005. The revision petitioner was not a party to such applications as he had been impleaded only subsequently. As the payment of court fee is a matter between the court and the plaintiffs, the revision petitioner has no locus standi to question the same. Even the present CRPs are not maintainable either under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 115 CPC.