Centre for Human Development v. C.Narasimman

Madras HC17 Mar 2026CRP/1142/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deficit court fee; Section 149 CPC; condonation of delay; extension of time; Article 227 Constitution of India; Civil Revision Petition CRP No. 1142 of 2020; I.A.No.1027 of 2017; Un-numbered OS.SR.No.1416/2012; Principal District Judge Kanchipuram at Chengalpattu; A.Nawab John & Ors. v. V.N.Subramaniam (2012) 4 CTC 206; C.M.P.Nos.9360 to 9362 of 1993; re-presentation of plaint; counsel's affidavit; Centre For Human Development and Social Change (AICUF); Madras High Court; K.KUMARESH BABU J.

What did the court decide?

Time extended by invoking Section 149 CPC for payment of deficit court fees; the Court below directed to receive the papers, if otherwise in order, and proceed further in accordance with law; no costs. ¶¶45

Centre for Human Development Vs C.Narasimman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether extension of time should be granted under Section 149 CPC for payment of the deficit court fee (claimed delay of 1,547 days) in the suit pending as Un-numbered OS.SR.No.1416 of 2012.

¶¶37

Court's answer

From the records placed before this Court, the actual delay in payment of the deficit court fee is only 22 days (not the 1,547 days claimed in the application), and the delay has been explained as caused by the conduct of the counsel on record.

¶¶38

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding the claimed delay of 1,547 days, the actual delay being only 22 days, this Court holds that the delay has been properly explained, the affidavit of the learned counsel on record being credible.

¶¶44

Key takeaways

The Division Bench judgment relied on by the 2nd respondent concerns delay in re-presentation of papers, not payment of deficit court fee; it can be taken note of and agitated by the respondent only if a future application for condonation of delay in re-presentation is filed, depending on the reasons then assigned.ratio¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, CRP No. 1142 of 2020 (K. Kumares h Babu J., 17-03-2026): Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2018 passed in I.A.No.1027 of 2017 in Un-numbered OS.SR.No.1416/2012 by the Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram District at Chengalpattu — an application under Section 149 CPC claiming condonation of a delay of 1,547 days in payment of deficit court fee. Background: the plaint was returned on 06.03.2012 with 12 deficiencies (first: deficit court fee), re-presented on 30.04.2012 after payment, and returned again on 04.06.2012 for deficiencies 2 to 12, with no application to condone delay in re-presentation. Held: from the records the actual delay in paying the deficit court fee was only 22 days, explained in the affidavit of the counsel on record, which the Court saw no reason to disbelieve; the delay was therefore properly explained. The Apex Court judgment in A.Nawab John & Ors. v. V.N.Subramaniam (2012) 4 CTC 206 (delays of 1328 and 585 days) was applied for the discretionary test of the length of, and reasons for, the delay; the Division Bench judgment in C.M.P.Nos.9360 to 9362 of 1993 (21.07.1993), concerning delay in re-presentation, was distinguished and left to be agitated if a re-presentation-delay application is later filed. Disposition: CRP allowed; time extended under Section 149 CPC for payment of deficit court fees; Court below to receive the papers if otherwise in order and proceed in accordance with law; no costs. A counter tendered late by the 2nd respondent's counsel was rejected and not taken on record.

¶1

CRP No. 1142 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

CRP No. 1142 of 2020

¶7

Centre For Human Development and Social Change (AICUF), No.52, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Rep. By Its Chairman Prof. Syed Zafarullah.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

C.Narasimman 2. M.Thangam

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2018 passed in I.A.No.1027 of 2017 in Un-numbered OS.SR.No.1416/2012 (On the file of the Principal District Judge of Kanchipuram District at Chengalpattu.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ashok Menon For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Ganeshmurthy (For R2) R1 – Not Ready in Notice

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2018 passed in I.A.No.1027 of 2017 in Unnumbered OS.SR.No.1416 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram District at Chengalpattu.

¶16

__________ Page1 of 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRP No. 1142 of 2020

¶19

Heard Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Ganeshmurthy, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶20

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the order passed

¶21

in the Interlocutory application filed under Section 149 CPC, seeking to condone the delay of 1,547 days in payment of deficit Court fee.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally, when the suit was presented, it was returned by the Court on 06.03.2012, noting 12 deficiencies, of which the first one related to deficit Court fee. On payment of the deficit Court fee, the plaint was represented on 30.04.2012 and the same came to be returned on 04.06.2012, noting that the deficiencies pointed out in 2 to 12 had not been complied with. There was also no application for condoning the delay in re-presentation. He would submit that an application under Section 149 C.P.C., had been taken out inadvertently, stating that the delay was 1,547 days in payment of deficit Court fee, whereas in fact the actual delay was only 22 days in making good the deficit Court fee. He would submit that the learned Judge, without appreciating the correct facts, had proceeded on the footing that there was no reason attributed for the delay of 1,547 days in payment of deficit Court fee, whereas the actual delay was only about 22 days.

¶23

__________ Page2 of 6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

CRP No. 1142 of 2020

¶26

That apart, he would submit that in the affidavit, the delay in payment

¶27

of deficit Court fee had been explained by the counsel on record for the petitioner. Hence, he seeks the indulgence of this Court.

¶28

Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would vehemently contest the claim that the delay of 1,547 days also includes the delay in re-presentation and not the deficit Court fee alone. He would also submit that the Court below had categorically found that no reasons had been attributed for condonation of the delay and the non-prosecution of the case for more than four years, which is wholly unjustifiable. He had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.Nawab John & Ors., Vs. V.N.Subramaniam , reported in (2012) 4 CTC 206 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.P.Nos.9360 to 9362 of 1993 dated 21.07.1993.

¶29

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would also submit that he had filed a counter before the Registry yesterday and that the same may be taken on record.

¶30

The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent with

¶31

regard to filing of the counter yesterday is rejected, as the CRP was filed in the year 2020 and only when the matter is taken up for final hearing, the counter is

¶32

Page3 of 6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

CRP No. 1142 of 2020

¶35

sought to be filed. Hence, the counter is not taken on record.

¶36

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶37

The issue before this Court is with regard to the petition filed under Section 149 of CPC., seeking extension of time for payment of deficit Court fee.

¶38

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the judgment relied upon by the 2^nd respondent, had left it to the discretion of the Court in extending the time for payment of deficit Court fee. However, it has also laid down that such extension of time should not ordinarily be granted and that the length of the delay and the reasons attributed for such delay in payment of deficit Court fee should also be considered. Even though the petitioner had taken out an application, seeking to condone the delay of 1,547 days in payment of deficit Court fee, from the records placed before this Court, it could be seen that the actual delay is only 22 days in payment of deficit Court fee and that the delay has been explained as having been caused due to the conduct of the counsel on record.

¶39

This Court do not find any reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by

¶40

the learned counsel on record to substantiate extension of time. In the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, there was a delay of 1328 days and 585 days on

¶41

Page4 of 6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

CRP No. 1142 of 2020

¶44

two occasions in payment of deficit Court fees. However, in the present case, even though the delay as claimed is 1,547 days, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the actual delay is only 22 days and accordingly, this Court is of the view that the delay has been properly explained. The other judgment relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court relates to delay in re-presentation of papers, which this Court finds has not been properly explained in that case. The said judgment can be taken note of by the Court and also can be agitated by the respondent, if any application for condonation of delay in re-presentation is filed by the petitioner, while re-presenting the papers, depending upon the reasons that may be assigned for such delay.

¶45

In fine, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. Time is extended by invoking Section 149 of CPC., for payment of deficit Court fees, and the Court below is directed to receive the papers, if it is otherwise in order, and proceed further in accordance with law. No costs.

¶46

17-03-2026

¶47

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶48

kak

¶49

To The learned Principal District Judge. Kanchipuram District, Chengalpattu.

¶50

__________ Page5 of 6

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis