In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court held that the trial court's dismissal of a suit for non-payment of court-fee after repeated adjournments was correct. The Court found no exceptional cause for extending time and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition challenging the impugned orders rejecting the plaint was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6790 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Dixit And Another Respondent :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Petitioner :- Devi Deen Yadav
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 30.4.2011, by which the trial court rejected the plaint of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs-petitioners on the ground of non-payment of court-fees. The trial court has observed that the plaintiffs-petitioners were being granted time since the year 2009, but they had failed to pay the court-fee and accordingly, the suit has been dismissed. The revisional court has declined to interfere with the order passed by the trial court in this regard and hence, the instant petition.
A perusal of the order sheet reveals that the suit was instituted on 9.12.2009 and according to munsarim report, there was deficiency of court fee of Rs. 7,907.50/-. The court fixed 20.7.2010 as next date to enable the plaintiffs to make good the deficiency. Since then, repeated opportunities were granted to the plaintiffs on 27.1.2010, 15.2.2010, 20.3.2010, 15.5.2010, 31.7.2010 and 25.9.2010 to make good the deficiency, but still the court-fees was not paid. On 8.10.2010, again plaintiffs filed adjournment application without making good the deficiency in courtfees. The adjournment application was allowed. The trial court granted last opportunity to make good the deficiency in court-fee, by the next date i.e. 30.10.2010. Again,
adjournment application was moved on that date, without making good the deficiency in court-fee despite previous order specifically mentioning that it was the last opportunity to make good the deficiency. The trial court once again, taking a lenient view, adjourned the matter observing that now, it would be the last opportunity to make good the deficiency in court fee. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 30.4.2011, it has rejected the case on ground of non-payment of court-fee.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are now ready to make good the deficiency and one last opportunity be granted to them.
Order 7 Rule 11 provides that the plaint shall be rejected, where it is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiffs on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court fails to do so. The proviso stipulates that the time fixed by the court for supplying the requisite stamp paper shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from supplying the requisite stamp papers and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiffs.
In the instant case, undoubtedly, sufficient time was granted to the plaintiffs to make the good the deficiency in court-fee, but they did not supply the stamp papers. The court, while extending the time, was required to record reasons which should be of exceptional nature, but even without any such reason being recorded, the time was
extended to the benefit of the plaintiffs. Still they did not avail the repeated opportunities granted in that regard. Consequently, this Court, in exercise of supervisory power, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)
Order Date :- 17.10.2019 Chandan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court and revisional court orders rejecting the plaint for non-payment of court-fee despite repeated opportunities.
Whether the refusal to extend time for payment of court-fee caused grave injustice under Order 7 Rule 11 proviso of the CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjeev Kumar Dixit And Another
Sudhir Kumar
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
