NALLURI SINGAIAH Vs. BANDLAPATI KISHORE BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent filed the suit against the revision petitioner with deficit Court fee and an application seeking time for payment of Court fee. The trial Court granted 20 days time for payment of Court fee. Respondent filed another application seeking further extension of time in which the trial Court extended time for payment by 10 more days. On an application seeking further extension of time, trial Court granted 15 more days time. Thereafter, respondent presented the plaint with a delay of 146 days along with an application to condone delay, after complying all the objections which was allowed by the trial Court and the suit was registered. After the revision petitioner put in appearance in the suit he filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, on the ground application for extension of time for payment of deficit Court fees was not filed within time for the 2nd time and application for condonation of delay of 146 days filed by he plaintiff does not contain reasons for non-payment of Court fee within the time granted by the trial Court. The said petition was dismissed by the order under revision. Hence this revision by the defendant.

(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the plaintiff (respondent) was granted extension of time for payment of Court fee on three occasions, and since none of those orders are complied with and since respondent filed an application for condonation of delay in representing the plaint without giving any explanation for his non-payment of Court fee within time, it is clear that Court fees was not paid within the time granted by the trial Court and so, in view of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the plaint has to be rejected and relied on Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (2) LS 1 (SC), in support of the said contention.

(3.) In my considered opinion, Saleem Bhai's case (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is of no help in deciding this revision, because in that case, the Apex Court remitted the case to the trial Court for deciding the application on the basis of the averments in the plaint after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties in accordance with law. Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC reads :