Court-fee , payment of --- Deficiency --- Scope of discretion of the Court under section 149 , C.P.C. in context of payment of court fee explained .

 PLD 2023 Supreme Court 912

Civil Procedure Code ---- S . 149 ---

Court Fees Act---Ss . 3 & 4 ---

Court-fee , payment of --- Deficiency --- Scope of discretion of the Court under section 149 , C.P.C. in context of payment of court fee explained .

Section 149 , C.P.C. expounds an exception to the set of guidelines and rules encompassed under Sections 4 and 6 of the Court Fees Act , 1870. The power of the Court conferred under Section 149 , C.P.C. is somewhat transient in nature and enunciates an interim measure only ; it does not , however , invest any power to exempt the payment of the requisite court fee altogether . The exercise of this discretion by the Court at any stage is , as a general rule , expected to be exercised in favour of the litigant on , presenting plausible reasons which may include bona fide mistake in the calculation of the court fee ; unavailability of the court fee stamps ; or any other good cause of circumstances beyond control , for allowing time to make up the deficiency of court fee stamps on a case to case basis . The discretion can only be exercised where the Court is satisfied that sufficient grounds are made out for non - payment of the court fee in the first instance . This power is always subject to the discretion of the Court in appropriate and fit cases and the litigant cannot claim the exercise of this discretion as of right or privilege in every case . A generous or easygoing view cannot be taken to cover up a premeditated strive or endeavor to avoid the payment of requisite court fee perfunctorily . The expression " at any stage " alluded to in Section 149 , C.P.C. accentuates that the deficiency , if any , on account of court fee can be ordered to be made good by the Appellate Court at any stage of proceedings in appeal . The provision delineated under Order VII , Rule 11 and Section 149 , C.P.C. have to be read collectively and in unison . In case of deficiency in the court fee , the Court cannot dismiss the suit or appeal without pinpointing the inadequacy of court fee and then fixing a timeline for payment . After compliance of the order within the stipulated timeframe , it shall have the same force and effect as if the court fee had been paid in the first instance . On the face of it , Section 149 , C.P.C. relates to the sanction of time for the payment of court fee in the beginning , while Section 148 , C.P.C. is germane to the enlargement of time where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for any act prescribed or allowed by the C.P.C. , and allows the Court to , in its discretion , from time to time , enlarge such period even where the period originally fixed or granted may have expired .

When time is allowed or extended by the Court for the payment of the requisite court fee , such order cannot be recalled unless it is formally reviewed . The policy of the law with the gateway of a beneficial provision is not intended to penalize or victimize the litigant on account of a deficiency in court fees . By no stretch of imagination have the laws vis - à - vis court fees and valuation of suits been envisioned to make available an apparatus to the parties under litigation to circumvent the decisiveness of the lis on merits or to elongate the life of the lis by raising objections as to court fees and valuation of the suit ; therefore it is also an obligation of the Court simultaneously that , while admitting or registering the plaint or appeal , it should check whether the requisite court fee has been paid or not , and , in case of deficiency or filing application under Section 149 , C.P.C. , pass necessary orders for compliance without keeping the application pending for an unlimited period of time . In the case in hand , the application under Section 149 , C.P.C. remained pending unnecessarily , without any order , until 02.10.2019 when the Court granted 15 days ' time for payment of the court fee and , on 04.10.2019 , the court fee was paid , which fact is also reflected from the impugned order , hence there was no lawful justification for considering the appeal barred by time and this finding of the High Court is erroneous . After making up the deficiency of court fee within the time allowed by the Court , the second appeal should have been heard on merits rather than technicalities . Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed , impugned order of High Court was set - aside and the matter was remanded to the High Court to decide the second appeal on merits .