PATCHA MAHENDRA Vs. KODURU PENCHALAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is defendant in O.S. No. 442 of 2003. The respondent filed the above suit on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nellore for recovery of sum of Rs. 73,200/- based on a pronote dated 30-12-1996 allegedly executed by the petitioner. The plaint was presented with a Court fee of Rs. 1/- accompanied by a petition praying time to pay proper Court fee. The trial Court accordingly allowed the time on three occasions and the respondent herein paid the Court fee of Rs. 2,866/- on 28-04-2003 and the plaint was registered as O.S. No. 442 of 2003. After receiving the summons and noticing the above position, present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, contends that the action of the trial Court in permitting the plaintiff to pay the Court fee with long delay after presentation of the plaint without valid reasons is bad in law. He would also urge that while exercising power under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), the learned trial Judge did not give any reasons and therefore the order is unsustainable. The learned counsel placed reliance on S.A. Khadeer v. G.V.R. Anjaneyulu and Buta Singh v. Union of India. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, contends that matter of Court fee is essentially between the plaintiff and the Government and the defendant has no locus standi to impugn the orders of the Court insofar as the Court fee is concerned. He would place reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Ganesh Prasad v. Narendra Nath and Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das. He would further urge that when the Court exercised its discretion under Section 149 of C.P.C., the exercise of discretion cannot be interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For this he relies on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

(3.) There is no denial of the fact that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money in a sum of Rs. 73,200/-. There is also no denial of the fact that the Court fee payable as per Section 20 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, is Rs. 2,866/-. There is also no denial of the fact that the plaint was presented only with a Court fee of Rs. 1/-. in these circumstances, the same cannot amount to proper presentation of the plaint. Nonetheless, the plaintiff filed an application seeking leave of the Court to pay the Court fee after some time. The said application was moved invoking the powers of the Court under Section 149 of C.P.C., which reads as under: 149. Power to make up deficiency of Court-fees: Where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to Court-fees has not been paid, the Court 1. 2003 (2) An.W.R. 127 (A.P.) = 2003 (5) ALD 577. 2. (1995) 5 SCC 284. 3. AIR 1953 SC 431.