LexA. NAWAB JOHN & ORS. versus V.N. SUBRAMANIYAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 369 A. NAWAB JOHN & ORS. V. V.N. SUBRAMANIYAM (Civil Appeal Nos. 4838-4840 of 2012) JULY 3, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.) Court Fees Act, 1870: Filing of plaint - Deficient court fee - Right of defendant to raise objection - Held: Question A B of court fee is a matter between the plaintiff and the Court - If C the Court comes to the conclusion that the court fee paid in the lower court is not sufficient, the court shall require the party to make good the deficiency - The legislature did not intend to give any advantage to the defendants on account of the payment of the inadequate Court fee by the plaintiffs - In a D case where the plaint is filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law but with deficit courtfee and the plaintiff seeks to make good the deficit of the court fee beyond the period of limitation, the Court, though has discretion uls. 149 CPC, must scrutinise the explanation offered for the delayed E payment of the deficit court fee carefully because exercise of such discretion would certainly have some bearing on the rights and obligations of the defendants or persons claiming through the defendants - It necessarily follows that s. 149 CPC does not confer an absolute right in favour of a plaintiff F to pay the court fee as and when he pleases - It only enables a plaintiff to seek. the indulgence of the' Court to permit the payment of court fee at a point oftime later than the presentation of the plaint - The exercise of the discretion by the Court is conditional upon the satisfaction of the Court that G the plaintiff offered a legally acceptable explanation for not paying the court fee within the period af limitation - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.149. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s. 149; 0. 7, r. 11 - 369 H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A Rejection of plaint sought on ground of deficiency of court fees - Held: 0. 7 r. 11 requires a plaint to be rejected, inter alia, where the relief claimed is undervalued and/or the plaint is written on a paper insufficiently stamped, and, in either case, the plaintiff fails to either correct the valuation and/or pay the B requisite court fee by supplying the stamp paper within the time fixed by the court - However, s. 149 speaks about the power to make up deficiency of court-fees - When s. 149 speaks about a document with respect to which court fee is required to be paid, it takes within its sweep not only plaints c but various other documents with respect to which court fee is required to be paid under the appropriate law including written statements in a suit - Therefore, from the language of s.149 it follows that when a plaint is presented to a Court without the payment of appropriate court fee payable thereon, 0 undoubtedly the Court has the authority to call upon the plaintiff to make payment of the necessary court fee - Such an authority of the Court can be exercised at any stage 'of the suit - Therefore, any amount of lapse of time does not fetter the authority of the Court to direct the payment of such deficit court fee - As a logical corollary, even the plaintiff E cannot be said to be barred from paying the deficit court fee because of the lapse of time - s. 149 confers power on the Court to accept the payment of deficit court fee even beyond the period of limitation prescribed for the filing of a suit, if the plaint is otherwise filed within the period of limitation - F Limitation is only a prescription of law; and Legislature can always carve out exceptions to the general rules of limitation, such as s.5 of the Limitation Act which enables the Court to condone the delay in preferring the appeals etc. - Limitation G H Act - Court Fees Act, 1870. Transfer of Property Act, 1882: s. 52 - Pendente lite purchaser's application for impleadment - Held: Should normally be allowed or considered liberally. A. NAWAB JOHN & ORS. v. V.N. SUBRAMANIYAM 371 s.52 - Effect of- Held: Effect of s.52 is not to render A transfers affected during the pendency of a suit by a party to the suit void but only to render such transfers subservient to the rights of the parties to such suit, as may be, eventually, determined in the suit. Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955: B ss. 4, 5, 12 - Held: No document which is chargeable with a fee under the Act shall be acted on by any court or any public office unless the appropriat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.