VEERAPATHIRA PILLAI AND IRULAPPA PILLAI Vs. VELUCHAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are defendants in O.S. No. 104 of 2003 on the file of Sub-Court, Paramakudi. The respondent is the plaintiff who filed a suit for specific performance of contract of an agreement of sale allegedly executed by these petitioners on 18.06.1999. It is agreed in the sale agreement inter alia that within two months from the date of the execution of the sale agreement, the defendants had to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent herein. Since they did not execute, the respondent filed the suit. He presented the plaint on 16.08.2002 on payment of Court fee of Rs. 16/- on the plaint against Rs. 11,057/- payable for the suit. The plaint was returned on 19.08.2002 for payment of deficit Court-fee. Even without payment of deficit Court fee, he represented the same on 09.09.2002. Again, it was returned by the Court on 16.09.2002 to comply with earlier direction. Even thereafter, without complying the same, the respondent represented the plaint on 21.10.2002. On 23.10.2002 also, the Court returned the plaint for the same reason. On all the above said occasions, he did not pay the deficit Court fee. On 08.09.2003, he represented the plaint with the payment of full Court fee along with an application to condone the delay of 284 days in representing the plaint into the Court. Finally, the plaint was taken on file on 26.09.2003 and numbered the plaint.

(2.) Aggrieved by the same, these petitioners filed I.A. No. 191 of 2005 under Sections 149 and 151 CPC requesting the Court to reject the plaint on the point of limitation. It is further stated in the affidavit that even though 284 days delay occurred in representation of the plaint and even a petition was filed to condone the delay by the plaintiff, the Court did not pass any orders in the condone delay application on representation of the plaint, but curiously, took the plaint on file. Hence, this petition is filed to struck off the plaint from the file.

(3.) In the counter filed by the respondent, he has stated that in view of paucity of stamp papers and his illness, he could not pay the deficit Court fee in time and that this petition is liable to be dismissed, since it has been filed belatedly by the petitioners, while the suit is coming up for trial.