Madras High Court
R.Anikumar vs P.Neelakandan on 3 January, 2022
C.R.P.(PD).No.2912 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.2912 of 2021
R.Anikumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
P.Neelakandan .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Sub-Judge at
Tambaram in I.A.No.339 of 2021 in I.A.No.240 of 2021 in O.S.Sr.No.3465
of 2021 dated 28.10.2021 by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mrs.T.Jayanthi
********
ORDER
------------
Page No.1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2912 of 2021
In view of the fact that the order has been passed prior to the
numbering of the suit, notice to the respondent is deemed un-necessary.
2. Challenge in this Revision is to the order of the trial Court made in
I.A.No.339 of 2021, in and by which, the trial Court, dismissed the petition
filed by the petitioner seeking to dispense with notice to the respondent in
I.A.No.240 of 2021, an application filed under Section 149 of the Code of
Civil Procedure seeking condonation of delay in payment of deficit Court fee.
3. The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of advance paid by him
under the agreement of sale dated 08.03.2019. The petitioner had valued the
suit at Rs.6,50,000/- and paid Court fee of Rs.19,500/-. The plaint was
returned requiring the petitioner to add the interest and pay the Court fee on
it. Accordingly, the plaintiff added the interest and paid the deficit Court fee
also. The plaint was presented on 27th July 2021. The agreement of sale is
dated 08.03.2019. The plaintiff has a minimum of 3 years to sue for refund.
The suit has been filed well within the limitation period. The re-valuation of
------------
Page No.2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2912 of 2021
the suit has also been done within the limitation period and the deficit Court
fee has also been paid within the limitation period.
4. The trial Court however ordered notice in the application in
I.A.No.240 of 2021 seeking condonation of delay of payment of deficit
Court fee. The trial Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in
CRP.(MD).(PD).No.259 and 1010 of 2012 to order notice.
5. The petitioner filed application in I.A.No.339 of 2021 pointing out
that since the Court fee has been paid before the expiry of period of limitation
in the suit, no notice is necessary in the application for condonation of delay
in payment of deficit Court fee. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in K.Natarajan Vs. P.K.Rajasekaran
reported in 2003 (2) MLJ 305, wherein the Division Bench has pointed out
that if the entirety of the Court fee is paid within the limitation period and the
mistake was out of the bona fide error, notice is not necessary in an
application seeking condonation of delay in payment of deficit Court fee. The
------------
Page No.3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2912 of 2021
same view has been reiterated in CRP.(MD).(PD).No.259 and 1010 of 2012
by Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Anand Venkatesh. In fact the learned Judge has
referred to the judgment in K.Natarajan Vs. P.K.Rajasekaran reported in
2003 (2) MLJ 305, where the Division Bench has specifically pointed out
that if the deficit Court fee is paid within the time granted, no notice is
necessary.
6. The learned trial Judge mis-read the judgments of this Court and
concluded that in all cases where the plaintiff seeks condonation of delay in
payment of Court fee, notice has to be ordered to the respondent. On that
premise the learned trial judge dismissed the application in I.A.No.339 of
2021.
7. I am satisfied that the dismissal of I.A.No.339 of 2021 is erroneous.
From the dates mentioned it is clear that the plaintiff has paid entire Court fee
within the time allowed under law for institution of suit. Therefore, no
prejudice would be caused to the defendant by condonation of delay. The
------------
Page No.4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2912 of 2021
Division Bench in K.Natarajan Vs. P.K.Rajasekaran reported in 2003 (2)
MLJ 305, has specifically pointed out that if the entire Court fee is paid
within the limitation period provided for filing the suit, no notice is necessary
to the respondent in the application for condonation of delay in payment of
deficit Court fee.
8. In such view of the matter, I am convinced that the Revision has to
be allowed. Therefore, the Revision is allowed. The order in I.A.No.339 of
2021 is set aside, I.A.No.240 of 2021 will stand allowed and the delay in
payment of deficit Court fee is condoned. The trial Court viz., learned
Subordinate Court, Tambaram is directed to number the suit and proceed with
the trial in accordance with law. No costs.
03.01.2022
dsa
Index : No
Speaking order
------------
Page No.5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2912 of 2021
To
The Sub-Judge, Tambaram
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
C.R.P.(PD).No.2912 of 2021
03.01.2022
------------
Page No.6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2912 of 2021
------------
Page No.7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
