A SAKTHIVEL Vs. V A SHANMOGAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this revision is to the order of the court below dated 6.8.2002 in I.A.No.17036 of 2001 in O.S.No.2676 of 2001 rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. According to the petitioner, the respondent who filed a suit based on an alleged pro-note executed by the petitioner, filed the same with deficit court fee though within the prescribed time limit, that the permission granted by the court below in its order dated 20.12.2000 in I.A.No.1752 of 2000 by condoning the delay in the payment of deficit court fee of Rs.10,000.50 was not in order and therefore the plaint was liable to be rejected by the court below. However, the court below, on finding that the suit was filed within the prescribed time limit and the deficit court fee having been paid on 31.3.2000 when I.A.No.1752 of 2000 was filed seeking condonation of delay in payment of deficit court fee, allowed the said application on 20.12.2000. In my view, it cannot be held that there was any scope for invoking Order 7 Rule 11 in order to reject the plaint. I am fully in agreement with the reasoning of the court below . On a reading of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., I find that under Sub-clause 'c' of Rule 11, the Court is empowered to grant necessary time to make good the deficiency in the payment of court fee paid along with the plaint though it was insufficiently stamped at that time when it was presented.

(2.) IN such circumstances, when the court below, in exercise of the powers vested with it under Order 7 Rule 11 (c) C.P.C., thought it fit to condone the delay in the payment of deficit court fee, which came to be paid by the respondent on 31.3.2000, the said exercise of power by the court below was perfectly justified and the same cannot be found fault with. It is to be noted that the said order dated 20.12.2000 passed in I.A.No.1752/2000 was not challenged in the manner known to law and the same has become final and conclusive. IN such circumstances, when the respondent had complied with the defect in the payment of court fee as per the provisions contained in sub-clause (c) of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., it cannot be held that the order of the court below was in any way vitiated. I therefore do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the court below in order to entertain this civil revision petition. The C.R.P. fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.15307 of 2002 is also dismissed.