K.DHANAVELU Vs. K.S.M.VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.190 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Vandavasi. The respondent herein is the plaintiff.

(2.) The short facts of this case are as follows:- The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,100/ - along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, on 1.6.2006, based on the Pro -note dated 20.5.2003. The plaint was returned by the Trial Court on 5.6.2006 pointing out certain defects including deficit court fee in filing the suit. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff re -presented the plaint on 24.7.2006 with an application under section 151 of C.P.C. to condone the delay of 34 days in re -presenting the plaint. Again, the plaint was returned on 26.7.2006 for non -compliance of the deficit court fee as pointed out by the Court. The plaint was returned on various dates to rectify the defects in filing the suit. Ultimately, the plaint was re -presented before the Trial Court on 1.9.2006. The Trial Court numbered the suit in O.S.No.190 of 2006 and thereafter, summons has been served on the revision petitioner in the aforesaid suit. On the other hand, the defendant/revision petitioner herein filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.324 of 2010 in O.S.No.190 of 2006 under Order VII Rule 11 (c) C.P.C.,. to reject the suit on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff had not chosen to file an Application under section 149 C.P.C. seeking to condone the delay in paying the deficit court fee as required under the above said provision placing reliance on the decision of this Court in V.N.Subramaniyam vs. A.Nawab John and others reported in (2007) 1 MLJ 669 and P.K.Gopalsamy vs. C.Sengapagam reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 1615. The respondent/plaintiff opposed the Application on the ground that the suit was filed within the limitation period and for complying with certain defects, the plaint was returned, and such defects were rectified and re -presented the suit, and therefore, there is merit in the application filed by the revision petitioner/defendant.

(3.) The Trial Court, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and after considering the issue raised in Application, held that there is no violation of provisions under Order VII Rule 11 (c) C.P.C., and dismissed the Application as devoid of merits.