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

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

Once a court allows extension of time and deficit court fees are paid, the payment is deemed to have been made in the first instance under Section 149 CPC. Subsequent applications for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) are not maintainable. Procedural orders can be passed and challenged but once acquiesced to or not challenged timely, they are binding except if set aside. Deficit payment is a matter between the State and the suitor, not the defendant.

Parties
Appellant: P.K. Palanisamy; Respondent: N. Arumugham; Respondent: Unknown (AND ANR.)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 28.11.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil Revision Petition No. 815 of 2008
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Plaint Rejection, Deficit Court Fee, Extension of Time for Payment, Condonation of Delay, Application Under Order 7 Rule 11, Section 149 CPC
Civil Procedure Plaint Rejection Deficit Court Fee Extension of Time for Payment Condonation of Delay Application Under Order 7 Rule 11 Section 149 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P.K. Palanisamy

Appellant

N. Arumugham

Respondent

Unknown (AND ANR.)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 28.11.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil Revision Petition No. 815 of 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a plaint filed with deficit court fees should be rejected outrightly
  2. 2 Whether extension of time for payment of deficit court fees can be granted under Section 149 CPC
  3. 3 Whether an application under Order VII Rule 11(c) for rejection of plaint is maintainable after time for deficit court fee has been extended and paid

Ratio Decidendi

Once a court allows extension of time and deficit court fees are paid, the payment is deemed to have been made in the first instance under Section 149 CPC. Subsequent applications for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(c) are not maintainable. Procedural orders can be passed and challenged but once acquiesced to or not challenged timely, they are binding except if set aside. Deficit payment is a matter between the State and the suitor, not the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside
  • Application under Order VII Rule 11(c) for rejection of plaint dismissed