MANOHARAN versus SIVARAJAN & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 25-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 12 S.C.R. 471 
MANOHARAN 
v. 
SIVARAJAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.10581 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 25, 2013 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:. 
s.149 - Deficiency in court fee - Suit -
Application by 
plaintiff-appellant for extension of time to pay balance court 
A 
B 
c 
fee - Rejected by trial court- High Court rejecting appellant's 
application for condonation of delay in filing regular first 
appeal - Held: s. 149 prescribes a discretionary power which 
0 
empowers the court to allow a party to make up the deficiency 
of court fee payable on plaint etc. -
It is also a usual practice 
that court provides an opportunity to the party to pay court fee 
within a stipulated time - Further, subject to submission of an 
affidavit by appellant of his income, court fee could have been 
E 
waived or provided by District Legal Services Authority -
Appellant deserved waiver of court fee so that he could contest 
his claim on merits which involved his substantive right -
Trial court erred in rejecting the case of appellant due to non-
payment of court fee - Delay in filing regular first appeal, 
having been explained, High Court erred in rejecting the 
F 
application for con(i9nation of delay in filing the appeal -
Judgments and decrees of trial court and High Court, set 
aside - Delay by appellant in· payment of court fee is 
condoned - Case remanded to trial cdurt for payment of court 
fee - Liberty given to appellant to approach District Legal G 
Service Authority/Taluk Legal SeNice Committee for grant of 
legal aid for sanction of court fee - Trial court shall adjudicate 
on rights of parties on merits - Legal Services Authorities Act, 
471 
H 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A 1987 - s.12(h) - Kera/a State Legal Services Authorities 
Rules, 1998 - r.12 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 39-A 
rlw Art.21- Social justice - Court fee. 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Art.39-A - Equal justice and free legal aid - Application 
of plaintiff for extension of time to pay balance court fee, 
rejected by trial court - Held: Art. 39A is equally applicable 
to district judiciary -
It is the duty of courts to see that justice 
is meted out to people irrespective of their socio economic 
C and cultural rights or gender identity -· Art. 39A provides for 
holistic approach in imparting justice to 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 -
D Social justice. 
The appellant filed a suit with I.he averments that he 
had obtained a loan of Rs.2,20,000/- from respondent no. 
1 and executed a sale deed with respect to the land in 
E question in favour of respondent no. 1, who in turn 
executed an agreement of re-conveyance deed in favour 
of the appellant in respect of the said property; that 
respondent no. 1 instead of issuing a deed of re-
conveyance, sold the property to respondents nos. 2 and 
3. The appellant, therefore, sought a decree for 
F mandatory injunction, for declaring the sale deed 
executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondents 
nos. 2 and 3 as null and void and for execution of 
reconveyance deed in his favour. The suit was valued at 
Rs.3,03,967 and the court fee was assessed as Rs. 
G 28,797/-. The appellant paid 1/10th of the court fee. 
However, the application of the appellant for extension 
of time to pay the balance court fee was rejected by the 
trial court. The appellant filed a regular first appeal with 
an application for condonation of delay in filing the 
H appeal. The High Court rejected the application for 
MANOHARAN v. SIVARAJAN & ORS. 
473 
condonation of delay. 
In the instant appeal filed by the plaintiff, the points 
that arose for consideration were: (i) Whether the Sub-
Judge was justified in rejecting the suit for non- payment 
A 
of court fee? (ii) Was the appellant entitled to condonation 
B 
of delay for non- payment of court fee before the Sub-
Judge? (iii) Whether the High Court was right in rejecting 
the application for condonation of delay in filing the 
regular first appeal by the appellant? and (iv) What 
Order? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 
Point no. 1 
1.1. Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
prescribes a discretionary power which empowers the 
court to allow a party to make up the deficiency of court 
c 
D 
fee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.