P.K. PALANISAMY versus N. ARUMUGHAM & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 23-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 342 
A 
P.K. PALANISAMY 
v. 
N. ARUMUGHAM & ANR. 
"' .
(Civil Appeal No. 4643 of 2009) 
•
I 
B 
JULY 23, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
...__, 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 0.7 r.11, s.149 r.w. s.151 
)' 
- Rejection of p{aint - Filing of plaint in 1998 on payment of 
c deficit court fees for the reason that stamp fees papers were 
not available in the Sub-Treasury - Time granted - Deficit 
court fees deposited and delay condoned - Respondent filed 
written statement - No objection raised therein with regard to 
the delay in payment of court fees - In 2008, defendant filed 
D 
application seeking rejection of plaint urging for the first time 
that suit was barred by limitation as the extension of time 
"-
granted by trial court under s.149 r.w. s.151 and condonation 
.,, 
of delay was passed without notice to him - Held: If court fees 
•Jr 
J. 
were not available in a sub-treasury for one reason or the other, 
~ 
E 
the court having regard to the maxim 'lex non cogit ad 
impossibilia' would not reject prayer for extension of time to 
deposit deficit court fees - Once an application under s. 149 
.. 
is allowed, 0. 7, R. 11 (cj would not have application. 
., ,-
The appellant filed. a suit for _recovery of money 
_... 
F 
against the respondents on 4.10.1998. The plaint was 
~ 
accompanied by a court fee at rupee 1 only. He also filed 
an application under s.148 CPC r.w. s.151 seeking six 
weeks time for payment of the deficit court fees, which 
~ 
was granted. Another application was filed on 8.11.1998 
r-
G seeking time for payment of deficit court fees on the 
.-
premise that stamp fees papers were not yet available in 
~_,., --
the Sub-Treasury, which was also allowed. He however, 
deposited the deficit court fee stamp on 17.2.1999, which 
was accepted by the Subordinate Judge. An application 
H 
342 
\ 
P.K. PALANISAMY v. N. ARUMUGHAM & ANR. 
343 
u/s.151 CPC for condoning the delay of 272 days in A 
presenting the plaint was allowed by trial court by order 
dated 2.11.2000. On 17 .2.2003, respondent filed written 
statement wherein, no objection was raised with regard 
to the delay in payment of court fees and as such no 
issue was also framed in this regard. Thereafter B 
respondent remained absent and an ex parte decree was 
passed on 29.9.2004. The ex parte decree was set aside 
on payment of costs. 
In 2008, the respondent filed an application under 
order 7 rule 11 CPC seeking for rejection of plaint urging C 
for the first time that the suit presented on 5.10.1998 was 
barred by limitation as the extension of time granted by 
trial court under s.149 r.w. s.151 CPC and condonation 
of delay in refiling was passed without issuing notice to 
him. The trial court dismissed the said application. High D 
'f 
Court allowed the revision petition filed under Article 227 
of the Constitution of India. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. When a plaint is presented ordinarily if -E 
should be accompanied with the requisite court fees 
payable thereupon. It, however, does not mean that 
whenever a plaint is presented with deficit court fee, the 
same has to be rejected outrightly. Section 149 CPC 
provides for the court's power to extend the period. F 
Section 149 raises a legal fiction in terms whereof as and 
when such"-deficit court fee is paid, the same would be 
deemed to have been paid in the first instance. [Para 7] 
[353-C-D; 354-8-E] 
G 
2. Appellant while presenting the plaint contended 
that sufficient court fee stamps were not available in the 
sub-treasury. The Presiding Officers of the local Civil 
Courts in a given situation would be aware thereof. It 
may, therefore, consider the prayers made in that behalf H 
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
by a suitor liberally. If court fees are not available in a 
sub-treasury for one reason or the other, the court 
having regard to the maxim 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia" 
would not reject such a prayer. Payment of court fees 
furthermore is a matter between the State and the suitor. 
B 
Indisputably, in the event a plaint is rejected, the 
defendant would be benefited thereby, but if an objection 
is to be raised in that behalf or an application is to be 
entertained by the court at the behest of a defendant for 
rejection of the plaint in terms of Order VII rule 11 (c) CPC, 
C several aspects of the matter are required to be 
considered. Once an application under Section 149 is 
allowed, Orde

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.