PALANISAMY Vs. KAILAPERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 claiming that the Plaint is barred by limitation, this CRP has been filed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the revision petitioner/defendant filed the I. A. No: 91 of 2006 contending that the respondent/plaintiff's promissory suit has to be filed within three years from the date of the promissory note i. e. , within 18. 6. 2005. Though the plaintiff filed the suit on 16. 3. 2005 within the period of limitation, yet filed the same with deficit court fee and for that purpose, the plaint was returned with a direction to represent the same within 23. 3. 2005 with proper court fee. However, the plaintiff represented the plaint with full court fees on 13. 2. 2006 without affording any reason. Even in the I. A. No. 15 of 2006 taken out to condone the delay in representing the petition, no explanation has been offered for payment of court fee belatedly. Since there is no specific application under Section 149 CPC to pay the deficit court fee belatedly and there being no order under Section 149 CPC permitting the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee, the Plaint is barred by time and liable to be rejected.

(3.) THE respondent/plaintiff contested the said I. A. , stating that though the plaint has been initially returned for deficit court fee, the same has been taken on file on representation of the Plaint with proper court fee, after condoning the delay of 312 days in representing the plaint. The defendant has not even filed any counter to the condone delay application filed by the plaintiff and having kept silent, he cannot now contend that the plaint is barred by limitation.