2013 (11) TMI 1559 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the learned sub Judge was justified in rejecting the suit for non- payment of court fee? Was the appellant entitled to condonation of delay for non- payment of court fee by the learned sub Judge? Whether the High Court was right in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant against the decision of the learned sub judge who rejected the suit of the appellant for non- payment of court fee?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the sub Judge's rejection of the suit for non-payment of court fee.
2. Entitlement of the appellant to condonation of delay for non-payment of court fee.
3. Validity of the High Court's rejection of the application for condonation of delay.
4. Final Order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the sub Judge's rejection of the suit for non-payment of court fee:
Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code provides discretionary power to the Court to allow a party to make up the deficiency of court fee. It is a common practice for the Court to provide an opportunity to pay the court fee within a stipulated time, failing which the Court may dismiss the appeal. In this case, the appellant's application for an extension of time to remit the balance court fee was rejected by the learned sub Judge due to financial difficulties. The Court did not provide an opportunity for payment, which was a misuse of discretion. The decision of the learned sub Judge was deemed incorrect and was set aside.

2. Entitlement of the appellant to condonation of delay for non-payment of court fee:
The power to condone the delay is conferred upon the Courts to enable them to do substantial justice. The appellant faced financial difficulties and could not pay the court fee, leading to the rejection of his suit. The appellant's right to his property was a substantive right, and the Court should have shown more compassion, in line with Article 39A of the Constitution of India, which mandates providing free legal aid to ensure justice is not denied due to economic disabilities. The appellant's inability to pay the court fee should have been addressed by the District Legal Services Authority. Consequently, the Court of sub Judge erred, and the delay in non-payment of court fee was condoned.

3. Validity of the High Court's rejection of the application for condonation of delay:
The High Court dismissed the appellant's application for condonation of delay, stating insufficient grounds for delay. However, the appellant had claimed he was unaware of the suit's rejection due to non-receipt of a postal card from his advocate. The appellant believed his application for an extension of time for payment of court fee would be allowed. The High Court's decision was unsustainable, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

4. Final Order:
The impugned judgment passed by the High Court was set aside. The application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the case was remanded back to the trial court for payment of court fee within 8 weeks. If the appellant cannot pay the court fee, he may approach the jurisdictional district legal service authority for legal aid. The trial court was directed to adjudicate the rights of the parties on merit and dispose of the matter expeditiously. The appeal was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.