N H Poornima vs Padmaja S
2026 Latest Caselaw 1425 Kant

Karnataka High Court

N H Poornima vs Padmaja S on 18 February, 2026

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                          -1-



                                                   R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                       BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
     CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4 OF 2021

BETWEEN:


1 . N H POORNIMA
    AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
    W/O LATE H SRINIVASA MURTHY
    R/AT NO.337, 10TH MAIN,
    SRINIVASANAGARA BSK 1ST STAGE
    BENGALURU - 560 050.
    PETITIONER NO.1 DEAD LR'S
    ARE ALREADY ON RECORD
    AS PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3

2 . SUSHMITHA S
    AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
    D/O LATE H SRINIVASA MURTHY
    R/AT NO.337, 10TH MAIN,
    SRINIVASANAGARA, BSK 1ST STAGE,
    BENGALURU - 560 050.

3 . S HEMANTH BHARADWAJ
    AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
    S/O LATE H SRINIVASA MURTHY
    R/AT NO.337, 10TH MAIN,
    SRINIVASANAGARA BSK 1ST STAGE,
    BENGALURU - 560 050.
                                         ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR., SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. SARAVANA.S., ADVOCATE)
                                -2-




AND

PADMAJA S
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRI P SAI PRASAD
R/AT NO.495, 9TH CROSS,
RAJMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 080.
                                                 ....RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. KAUSHIKA U., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S. NO. 2092/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH30) AT BENGALURU AND SET ASDIE THE ORDERS DATED 09.06.020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2092/2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.2092/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE , BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115

of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the hands of the

defendants in O.S.No.2092/2020 on the file of the learned

XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-30) at Bengaluru, with

the following prayers:

(i) Call for the records in O.S.No.2092/2020 on the file of the XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH30) at Bengaluru and;

  (ii)       Set aside the orders dated 09/06/2020
             passed       in    O.S.No.2092/2020         and
             consequently      dismiss    the     suit    in

O.S.No.2092/2020 on the file of the City Civil Judge at Bengaluru and;

(iii) Pass such other orders as may be deemed

appropriate in the ends of justice and equity.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Trial Court.

3. The contention of the defendants in brief is that

the suit is filed for recovery of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees

Seventeen Lakhs Only) along with interest at the rate of

18% per annum. The suit was filed on 17.11.2017

without payment of court fee. The Registry raised

objection that court fee of Rs.1,26,820/- is not paid by the

plaintiff along with the suit. However, an interlocutory

application under Section 149 of CPC was filed seeking two

months time to pay the court fee. No further application

was filed for extension of time to pay the deficit court fee.

However, on 05.03.2020 office note is put up stating that

by oversight the file was missing and hence the file is

placed before the learned Judge for orders. The learned

Judge directed issuance of notice to plaintiff and plaintiff's

counsel, and to list the matter on 16.03.2020. Office note

on 16.03.2020 is that the notice is served on the plaintiff

and the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. However, the

learned Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, passed an order

on 16.03.2020 that the learned Advocate for plaintiff is

present and files memo with Demand Draft for

Rs.1,26,820/-, in favour of the Registrar, City Civil Court,

towards deficit court fee. Accordingly, office was directed

to send the Demand Draft to Cash Branch. Office was

directed to verify correctness of payment of court fee and

then put up by 30.03.2020. On 09.06.2020 office note is

that due to lockdown, case is taken on the day's board, for

kind orders. Order is passed by the learned Judge that the

deficit court fee is paid, hence register the suit.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar,

appearing for the defendants submitted that the provision

contained in Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

vests the court with discretion to allow the plaintiff to pay

the deficit court fee, but such discretion can be exercised

in deserving cases, after application of mind. Having

regard to the facts hereinabove, learned Senior Counsel

submits that there being no application from the plaintiff

seeking extension of time for payment of deficit court fee,

the court could not have exercised such discretion. There

being no reason pleaded by the plaintiff for not paying the

court fee/deficit court fee for more than two years, the

court could not have exercised such discretion unilaterally.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the defendants placed

reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Buta Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Union of India

(UOI)1, where it was held that if the deficit court fee is

not made up and presented within the time enlarged

under Section 148 of CPC, there would be no appeal in the

eye of law unless the delay is condoned. It was held that

if the party deliberately, to suit his convenience, paid

insufficient court fee, the mistake is not bona fide but one

of choice made by the party. In such situation, if the court

fee is not paid, it would be open to the court either to

reject the suit or refuse to condone the delay for not

showing sufficient cause thereon. The Apex Court

therefore held that the court is required to exercise its

judicial discretion keeping in mind the facts and

circumstances in each case and not automatically, for

mere asking, that the indulgence be shown to the party to

make good the deficit court fee. It was held that if

discretion is not exercised accordingly, it would amount to

showing undue indulgence. Further, while placing reliance

on another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

A.Nawab John and Ors. Vs. V.N.Subramaniyam2, the

(1995) 5 SCC 284

(2012) 7 SCC 738

learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the matter of

payment of deficit court fee the discretion must be

exercised in a manner not to confer unfair advantage on

one of the parties to the litigation. It was held that in a

case where a plaint is filed within the period of limitation

prescribed, but with deficit court fee and the plaintiff seeks

to make good the deficit court fee beyond the period of

limitation, the court, though has discretion under Section

149 of CPC, it must scrutinize the explanation offered for

the delayed payment carefully, because exercise of such

discretion would certainly have some bearing on the rights

and obligations of the defendants. The Apex Court having

found that the High Court rightly held that the discretion

under Section 149 was not exercised by the Trial Court in

accordance with the principles of law. It was held that

the appeal was required to be dismissed on that count

alone. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit

that when admittedly no application was filed by the

plaintiff seeking further extension of time and in view of

the fact that Section 148 of CPC provides for enlargement

of such period for payment of deficit court fee, but not

exceeding 30 days in total, there was no scope for the

learned Judge to have passed the impugned order

accepting the deficit court fee after two years from the

date of filing of the suit.

6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri

N.Ravindranath Kamath, appearing for the plaintiff

submitted that the Civil Revision Petition is not

maintainable. It was submitted that the defendants did

not file any application seeking rejection of the plaint. If

such application was filed, the plaintiff would have justified

the reason for delay in payment of deficit court fee. On

the other hand, this Civil Revision Petition is filed, without

any adjudication between the parties on the issue of

payment of deficit court fee. The learned Senior Counsel

submitted while placing reliance on Ganapathi Hegde Vs.

Krishna Kudva and other3, that the Apex Court has held

that though the plaint as originally filed was not affixed

with requisite court fee stamps, but before the suit was

registered the deficit court fee was supplied and hence the

(2005) 13 SCC 539

Trial Court's consequent order rejecting the defendants

application under Order VII Rule 11 was perfectly in

accordance with law and within the discretion conferred on

the Trial Court. The learned Senior counsel, while placing

reliance on Manoharan Vs. Sivarajan and Others4

submitted that the Apex Court, while considering the

scope and purport of Section 149 of CPC has also taken

into consideration Article 39A of the Constitution of India

and held that Article 39A provides for holistic approach in

imparting justice to the litigating parties. It not only

includes providing free legal aid via appointment of

counsel for the litigants, but also includes ensuring that

justice is not denied to litigating parties due to financial

difficulties.

7. At this juncture, Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned

Senior Counsel submitted while pointing out to the

decision in Buta Singh, where the Apex Court has held

that inability to raise money to pay Court fee is not a

reason to exercise the discretion under Section 149 of

(2014) 4 SCC 163

- 10 -

CPC. Moreover, it was held that mere poverty or ignorance

or inability to pay the Court fee at the time of presenting

the appeal is not always a good ground for indulgence

under Section 149.

8. Heard learned Senior Counsel

Sri.D.R.Ravishankar for the petitioners/defendants and

learned Senior Counsel Sri.N.Ravindranath Kamath for

respondent/plaintiff and perused the petition papers.

9. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioners/defendants, the Apex Court has

clearly held in the case of Buta Singh that it is the duty of

the Registry before admitting the suit to point out to the

plaintiff or his counsel that the deficit Court fee is payable

on the plaint and some reasonable time is given for

payment of deficit Court fee. The plaint should be returned

to do the needful. If the deficit Court fee is not made up

and the plaint is not presented within time enlarged under

Section 148 CPC, there would be no suit in the eye of law,

unless the delay is condoned. It was therefore held that if

- 11 -

a party, deliberately, to suit his convenience paid

insufficient Court fee, the mistake is not bona fide, but one

of choice made by the party. It was therefore held that in

such situation, even after grant of reasonable time for

payment of deficit Court fee, the deficit Court fee is not

paid the Court should have rejected the suit.

10. Having regard to the undisputed facts, that the

suit was filed on 17.11.2017 along with an application

under Section 149 of CPC seeking two months time to pay

the deficit Court fee and accordingly, the Court directed to

put up the plaint on 27.01.2018, after deficit Court fee is

paid, no further application was filed by the plaintiff. No

extension of time is granted by the Court. Nevertheless,

the matter is listed on 27.01.2018, 27.04.2019,

05.03.2020 and 16.03.2020. On 16.03.2020, the learned

counsel for the plaintiff furnished a Demand Draft for

Rs.1,26,820/- and the same was accepted without the

Court passing any order regarding condonation of delay.

11. The learned Senior Counsel for the defendants is

also right in his submission that although Section 148 of

- 12 -

the CPC provides a party to seek enlargement of time to

pay the court fee, nevertheless, the provision was

amended by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,

1976, with effect from 01.02.1977 to put a limit on

enlargement of such period by inserting the words 'not

exceeding 30 days in total' with a view to minimize the

procedural delay at the instance of either party to a suit.

That being the position, it was impermissible for the Trial

Court to accept the Demand Draft for payment of deficit

court fee after two years from the date of filing of the suit.

Moreover, no application was filed by the plaintiff after the

initial application was filed along with the plaint, seeking

extension of time by two months. Therefore, this Court is

of the considered opinion that the impugned order

accepting the payment of deficit court fee could not have

been passed by the Trial Court, in the facts and

circumstances of this case.

12. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is

allowed. The impugned order dated 09.06.2020 passed

by the Trial Court in O.S. No.2092/2020 accepting the

- 13 -

deficit court fee and registering the suit is hereby quashed

and set aside, while holding that the suit filed by the

plaintiff is still born and cannot be registered.

Ordered accordingly.

Pending I.As., stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

JT/rv CT: JL