• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 149, 151 - Dismissal has occasioned on account of non-compliance of the direction of payment of court fee for the relief claimed in suit - The proper procedure would have been only to file an application for extension of time for payment of court fee and as a consequence recall the order rejecting the plaint - The petition to extend the time for payment of court fee could have been filed only under Section 149 of the Code and to recall the order of rejection by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code - Any order passed under Section 149 or 151 of the Code are not appealable order and only revision could have been maintained. (181) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 149, Order 7, Rule 1(i), Order 6 - Date of institution when the plaint is presented in its form shall be the plaint which is presented with the requisite fee - A suit filed with insufficient court fee by 1/3rd of what was required on the last date of limitation cannot be taken as a due institution to save the suit from the bar of limitation when no explanation at all had been given for non-payment of court fee. (182) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 149, Order 7 Rule 11, Proviso - Postulates that time fixed for payment of deficient court fee can be extended on sufficient cause being shown - Such extension of time can also be granted on oral request - Counter, claimants had to pay huge amount of court fee on the amount of Rs.13.50 crores - Were granted time of 20 days - If the trial court granted another 20 days' time to them to pay the deficient court fee - It cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the trial court is not in judicial manner or that the said discretion has been exercised in arbitrary manner or without sufficient cause. (173) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 149 - Appellant could not pay court fee due to financial difficulty because of which his suit got  rejected - Appellant had moved the court claiming his substantive right to his property - Article 39A of the Constitution of India provides for holistic approach in imparting justice to the litigating parties - It not only includes providing free legal aid via appointment of counsel for the litigants, but also includes ensuring that justice is not denied to litigating parties due to financial difficulties - Therefore, in the light of the legal principle laid down by this Court, the appellant deserved waiver of court fee so that he could contest his claim on merit which involved his substantive right - Constitution of India, Article 39-A. (S.C.)(173) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 149 - Constitution of India, Article 39-A - Court while extending the time for or exempting from the payment of court fee, must ensure bona fide of such discretionary power - Concealment of material fact while filing application for extension of date for payment of court fee can be a ground for dismissal - No opportunity was given by the learned sub Judge for payment of court fee by the appellant which he was unable to pay due to financial constraints - Hence, the decision of the learned sub Judge is wrong and is liable to be set aside and accordingly set    aside. (S.C.)(173) P.L.R.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 149 - Court fee - Appellate Court has power to give time to the appellant to pay the deficient court fee. (173) P.L.R. 1