The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed to extend time for court fee payment. Although the lower court had permitted a plaint amendment, the petitioners failed to amend pleadings, pay fees, or seek exemption. The court held the petition was filed solely to protract proceedings.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3452 OF 2011
ORDER:
The petitioners filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking to assail the order dated 21.06.2011 passed in I.A.No.81 of 2011 in O.S.No.1320 of 2009 on the file of the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed under Section 149 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {CPC}, to extend the time for remitting 3/4th of the Market Value as Court Fee under Section 24 (a) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, to the credit of the suit in pursuance of the order dated 20.08.2010 in I.A.No.570 of 2010 hearing the deficit Court Fee of Evidence Act to permit the petitioners to mark the Xerox copies of the said rental agreement in secondary evidence.
The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, are that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed petition for amendment and sought relief of declaration of title. The Court below allowed the petition permitting the petitioners to amend the plaint directing to pay 3/4th of Court Fee. But, due to financial crises, the petitioners could not pay Court Fee in time and filed the present petition to extend time for remitting Court Fee. Though, the Court below allowed the amendment petition, the petitioners did not amend the pleadings within fourteen {14} days as required under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The petitioners have not taken any steps to carry out
amendments and not taken any permission to pay Court Fee subsequently and did not approach the District Legal Services Authority for exemption from paying Court Fee but at the stage of arguments, filed the present petition to extend time for payment of Court Fee without seeking relief for amendment. With the said reasoning, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.81 of 2011. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in V.O.Devassy
v. Periyar Credits and another[1] .
The said decision has no application to the facts of the present case and I do not find any reason to grant the relief of extending time for payment of Court Fee, as though the amendment petition was allowed, the petitioners have not taken any steps to carry out the amendments and not taken any permission to pay Court Fee subsequently and also did not approach the District Legal Services Authority for exemption from paying Court Fee. The present petition is filed only to protract the proceedings and not otherwise. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_____________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J)
25th November 2011 RRB
[1] AIR 1994 Kerala 405
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should extend the time for remitting court fee when the petitioner has not amended pleadings or sought fee exemption despite an earlier amendment permission.
Whether the present petition is a bona fide attempt to pursue the suit or merely a dilatory tactic to protract proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.O. Devassy v. Periyar Credits and AnotherDistinguished¶6
V.O.Devassy v. Periyar Credits and another [1] AIR 1994 Kerala 405 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioners
Ordinary Suit Petitioner No.1
Ghulam Mohammed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
